Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

WALES

Regional Aid

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much grant he expects to pay out in (a) regional development grant and (b) regional selective assistance in Wales in 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Planned expenditure on the two schemes in Wales is £98 million in 1987–88; £109 million in 1988–89; £94 million in 1989–90; and £89 million in 1990–91. Added to those two schemes is the very substantial increase in expenditure for the Welsh Development Agency—to £113 million gross in 1988–89—and the benefits that will be obtained from the three new regional investment, innovation and business development grants.

Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making regional selective assistance tax free, which would put it on the same basis and give it the same incentive value as RDG, which is being phased out?
Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the call of the Confederation of British Industry Wales for a longer period for phasing out RDG, so as not to destroy the incentive for industry to move to Wales?

Mr. Walker: Taxation is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it is very much taken into account when setting the level of RSA grants.
I considered the CBI Wales proposal, but rejected it because, between now and the end of March, any firm in Wales with a project that might attract RDG could produce it. Indeed, the Welsh Office, through a whole range of agencies, has made great efforts to communicate with Welsh firms to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Opposition that, as part of their "Labour Listens" campaign, they lend an ear—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must be related to the main question.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Opposition—

Mr. Speaker: That is no good.

Mr. Raffan: Is it not the belief of the Welsh Trades Union Congress that the automatic nature of RSG has led to a wasteful allocation? Does it not strongly favour a much greater selectivity to improve the cost-effectiveness of our regional policy?

Mr. Walker: Certainly the TUC document mentioned that it wished to move towards greater selectivity. However, I am unwilling to make suggestions to the Opposition because I am very happy with the way that they are behaving.

Mr. Livsey: When the right hon. Gentleman visits Mid-Wales Development tomorrow, will he note that it has benefited considerably from RDG? Is he aware that that organisation is worried about the Government's regional policy? What does he intend to tell it about the Government's regional policy?

Mr. Walker: I had discussions with the chairman of Mid-Wales Development last week, and he shares our delight about the considerable increase in regional aid for


Wales. I very much look forward to visiting the organisation tomorrow and seeing Newtown and the activities there.

Dr. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in the areas recently affected by Dairy Crest closures — at Llangefni in Ynys Mon and Felin Fach, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Ynys Mein (Mr. Jones)— the full armoury of regional policy will be available to provide alternative employment in those areas?

Mr. Walker: I can give that assurance because this is an instance of where organisations such as the Welsh Development Agency and Mid Wales Development can move in quickly. I understand that the WDA has today announced a joint programme to find alternative food businesses for Ynys Mon. I have also decided that, under the urban aid programme, I shall proceed with some new workshops in that locality in the near future.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: When considering regional assistance, what account does my right hon. Friend take of the achievement of private investment, which, in some parts of Wales, has been very successful?

Mr. Walker: I am delighted to say that as areas of Wales have an expanding economy and prosperity improves it is easier to gear up and get far more private investment. A great deal of investment is taking place in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the increased WDA figure that he pleaded in aid in his opening answer will still be below the level of 1978–79 Government funding? If the Welsh Office is so committed to selective assistance, because that leaves the decisions in the control of the Secretary of State, how does he explain the fact that, since 1978–79, regional selective assistance in Wales has fallen by virtually 50 per cent., giving us a cumulative loss of £330 million, whereas in Scotland it has doubled? The Secretary of State for Scotland has obviously been looking after Scotland's interests far better than the Secretary of State for Wales has been looking after Wales' interests. In the final analysis, on the projections which he has just given of his spending on combined regional grant for the next three or four years, the figure for each year is virtually £100 million less than was being spent in 1978–79.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman suffers because his only source of political originality is a research assistant who finds him a base year on which to connect and reject figures. As I have learnt that technique, I can assure him that when the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs meets later this week I shall project, on a similar basis, all the health figures for the period in which he was in government. It is a bogus method of presenting figures. The Labour party is alone in Wales in regretting the enormous increase in regional aid that will take place.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total of unemployed in Wales in February 1979 and to the latest recorded date in the current year; and what the increase in unemployment represents as a percentage figure.

Mr. Peter Walker: The seasonally adjusted number of unemployed claimants in Wales in February 1979 and December 1987 were 75,000–6 per cent.—and 140,300 —11·7 per cent. which figure, I am pleased to say, has decreased by 20 per cent. over the past 19 months.

Mr. Jones: In order further to rebuild the economy on Deeside, will the right hon. Gentleman consider vastly improving road access to the very fine Deeside industrial park? Does he understand that the communities of Shotton and Connah's Quay want to be bypassed by a new crossing of the River Dee so that their lives can be made much better by getting the traffic out of the streets? The great worry of Alyn and Deeside council is that, despite its good plans for jobs, it cannot get hold of the site of the Connah's Quay power station, which is now redundant. Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss these matters when he visits Clywd later this month?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I shall be happy to discuss any matters when I make that visit. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the appearance of the entrance to the industrial park. It is partly a question of land ownership and current usage there, but I hope that those concerned will have urgent discussions so that the situation can be improved.

Mr. Foot: Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of the shudder of dismay throughout the coalfields in Wales last week at the fresh or projected redundancies in that industry? Will he tell us whether British Coal consulted him before those announcements were made, and will he confirm that urgent consideration will be given to Abernant colliery and all the other projected rundowns? It is a serious situation and I hope that the Government will not have allowed British Coal to embark on this programme without consulting them first.

Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, this is a matter for British Coal. I am pleased to say that when I was responsible for these matters, I laid down a new procedure which allows an independent examination of any application. If the mines concerned wish to go through that procedure, they will be able to do so. That procedure is a considerable improvement on that operated in Wales between 1964 and 1970, when 32,000 miners lost their jobs as a result of pit closures.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the steadily falling trend of unemployment, while in perfect contrast to the rising trend of the Labour Government, has still not gone far enough, that we must continue to accord the highest priority to combating unemployment and that this will be best served by a positive approach to the jobs created for industry and the potential for even more jobs in Wales?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Some staggering achievements are taking place. In the past year a record number of factories led to record inward investment and a record drop in unemployment. I hope that that trend will continue.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, since his appointment, he seems to have been engaged in spreading synthetic optimism? The reality of the Welsh situation was symbolised by the 2,000 job losses in our coal industry last week. Is there not every sign that job


prospects for 1988 are worse in Wales than for any other region? In regard to pay levels, we are simply at the bottom of the league.

Mr. Walker: Prospects for the coming year are better for Wales than for most parts of the country. The facts will show that to be the case. I noticed the hon. Gentleman's jubilation at the announcement that the Trustee Savings Bank is going to Newport and the optimistic and cheerful notice that he put out. I am happy for the Labour party to be the party of pessimism and for the Conservative party to be the party of optimism.

Heads of the Valleys

Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take in the light of his recent visits to and tours of the Heads of the Valleys communities.

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take following his recent visit to the Valleys area of South Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: My recent visits to the Valleys communities have helped to clarify the shape of the major programme that I am devising.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State's new Valleys initiative include additional resources for the Health Service in our communities? In particular, will it include sufficient resources to reopen the high-dependence units in St. Tudful's hospital? That hospital was opened only six months ago by the Queen Mother and was shut at the new year as a result of lack of resources. It has resulted in £120,000 worth of extremely good equipment lying idle.

Mr. Walker: I am having consultations on the initiative with Valley health authorities, and I am looking at the manner in which the particular medical and health problems of the Valleys should be considered in such a programme.

Mr. Ron Davies: Opposition Members regard the Secretary of State's answer with some scepticism. There are many promises, but not much is delivered. During his visit to the Valleys, did he understand the anger and bitterness at the continued underfunding of the National Health Service? Is he aware that, this week, nursing and ancillary staff at Caerphilly miners' hospital will work for 200 hours on a voluntary unpaid basis to make up one day's shortfall between what the hospital needs and what it gets? In the circumstances, as his Government have been so quick to criticise nurses who withdraw their labour, will he offer his support to the staff at Caerphilly miners' hospital?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must feel pretty ashamed at asking such a question, when he considers the level of nurses' pay when we came to office and how, during the period of the Labour Government, it went down in real terms. Under our Government it has substantially increased. On the general matter of promises, most of the people whom I met on my visit were delighted at the Valleys factory building programme that was announced during the past week.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposed colliery closures will be a tremendous blow to Valley communities of south Wales? Rather than scoring

political points, will he address the queston that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about what proposals he had to provide work for those who will be put out of work?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will know that British Coal has categorically stated that there will not be a single compulsory redundancy.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Secretary of State said that, as a result of his recent tour, we got the commitment to the Valleys initiative. We welcome that. Will he confirm also that table 2.2 of the public expenditure White Paper clearly shows that the total spend in Wales will fall by £6 million next year and £54 million over the next three years? They are the Government's figures in their own White Paper. As he has told us that his Valleys initiative is included in the diminished figures, will he confirm also that, therefore, instead of extra money being available for it, the initiative is to be wholly funded by cuts in other Welsh programmes? As he does not like my statistics, although they have stood up to close examination somewhat better than his own have, will he publish in Hansard a list of the cuts that will fund his initiative?

Mr. Walker: I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman should decide to find a new research assistant who will not cause him such political embarrassement. I am delighted to say that once again his figures are incorrect. I have already announced a most enormous increase in regional aid for Wales, which will benefit the Valleys.

School Meals

Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to improve the quality of school meals in Wales; and if' he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Responsibility for the provision of school meals, including their quality, rests with local education authorities. A recent Government survey indicates that school meals provide adequate amounts of essential nutrients

Dr. Marek: Nevertheless, is the Minister aware of the research carried out at Darland high school in my constituency into students and children eating junk food and therefore not attaining their full academic potential? Is he concerned at the results of that research? Will he ensure that further research is carried out to confirm or rebut the results of the research at Darland high school and, as this is clearly a serious matter, which cannot be left to local education authorities, will he set in train processes to re-establish nutritional standards at all our schools in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: Of course I am aware of the experiment carried out at Darland high school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which, incidentally, is very well reported in the Lancet of 23 January. The conclusion of that research was that in most cases the average intake of vitamins was close to the recommended daily allowance, although for a minority the intake was low. W e always consider dietary studies of this kind, but whatever school meals are supplied the choice whether to take them lies with the children concerned.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Clwyd health authority and Clwyd local education authority on their joint campaign "Healthy


Eating—the Clwyd Way"? Will he suggest to the Welsh Health Promotion Authority that it takes up this admirable initiative to teach schoolchildren about healthy eating through school meals with the correct foods and at a low price?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the preliminary results of a DHSS survey into the diets of schoolchildren in Britain, published in April 1986, showed that school meals provided adequate amounts of all the essential nutrients, although intakes of fat were found to be too high. My hon. Friend is right in saying that all efforts to improve the quality of diet for schoolchildren should be welcomed, including the efforts of Clwyd.

Trawsfynydd Power Station

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local residents seeking the abandonment of the experiment being planned for 12 February at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station.

Mr. Peter Walker: I received a number of representations, from north Wales and elsewhere, expressing concern about the proposed test. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Central Electricity Generating Board has decided to postpone the test.

Mr. Williams: May I express my relief and delight that the CEGB has decided to postpone the test? However, is the Secretary of State aware of the concern felt by people in that area and all over Wales that the test could still take place and might be carried out in secret, as happened at Hinkley Point in 1965 and again in 1985? Will the Secretary of State seek assurances from the CEGB that the test will not take place — we want it cancelled rather than postponed — and that it will certainly not take place in secret?

Mr. Walker: I can certainly give an assurance that no such test will take place in secret.

Dr. Thomas: Has the Secretary of State brought his views on nuclear power with him from his previous incarnation?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I am aware of the concern and I am also well aware that no such test could take place without the full agreement of the independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which would not agree unless it knew that the test was completely safe.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If that is the case, why were the people of Cumbria not told that a similar test was to take place at Sellafield?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, that is not part of this question.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the Secretary of State not concerned that the decision to carry out this frightful experiment was made with no proper consultation with the fire service, teachers organisations or farmers unions? In view of the outrage generated, will he accede to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), who calls not for postponement, but for the cancellation of the experiment?

Mr. Walker: It may well be that the communications to those concerned about the nature of the test were not

sufficient. Therefore, those who wished to put over wholly unfounded propaganda about the lack of safety and the nature of the test succeeded in doing so. I hope that before any such test takes place the CEGB will carefully communicate the basis of the test.

Gwent

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve primary health care in Gwent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Primary health care in Gwent, as in other parts of the Principality, will benefit from the implementation of proposals set out in the Government's White Paper entitled "Promoting Better Health".

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that there is great unease in Wales about the proposals that are set out in that White Paper? When he and his right hon. Friend begin their survey of Valley health, including the points that the Secretary of State made a few minutes ago, will they ensure that extra resources are given to primary health care in Wales? Will he give an undertaking to the House that there will be more general practitioners, especially in the Valleys of south Wales?

Mr. Grist: Yes, I think that I can give much of the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asked. If he reads the White Paper he will see that special attention is to be given to the Valleys and that the number of general practitioners in his constituency has increased by about 10 per cent. under this Government. We look for a further improvement in the years ahead.

Housing (Multiple Occupation)

Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in his consideration of policy towards houses in multiple occupation.

Mr. Grist: My consultation with local authorities, fire authorities and other interested bodies is now complete and I have set up a working party with their representatives.
The consultation showed that local authorities felt inhibited by the mandatory grants for houses in multiple occupations. As a result, the Government intend to make grants to houses of multiple occupation landlords discretionary.

Mr. Anderson: Do the Government not recognise the facts of the situation — the squalid and dangerous properties and the fire tragedies that have occurred and that the guidance that was promised as long ago as 1980 is still only in draft form? I welcome what the Minister said, so far as it goes, but, because of the facts, should there not now be mandatory powers for local authorities if the Government are serious about the position and about seeking to provide proper protection, at last, for tenants?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know of my personal constituency interest in this problem. I think he will understand that in the consultation process local authorities showed that they wished to have flexibility in their responses.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned fire problems, and he will be interested to know, as will other hon. Members,


that in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering further guidance to establish a national advisory standard for fire safety measures in houses in multiple occupation.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be a great deal of satisfaction with his original reply and his supplementary answer? However, can he allay my fears that the one contribution that the community charge will make to this problem wil be to encourage owners of houses in multiple occupation to push a number of their tenants out on to the pavement?

Mr. Grist: I am a little bewildered by that question, because they will pay the collective charge anyway.

Mr. John: Will the Minister publish the criteria upon which the discretion for grants for houses in multiple occupation will be paid?

Mr. Grist: Details will be made available in the Housing Bill that we shall promote in the next Session.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

Mr. Peter Walker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 18 January.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that good communications are vital for attracting new jobs to areas such as Gwent? Does he also appreciate that the Severn bridge has been paid for many times over? If £180 million can be wiped off the Humber bridge debt, surely there is now a strong case for toll-free motoring on the M4, or is the Secretary of State going along with the Secretary of State for Transport, who now seems intent on imposing tolls on so much of our road network?

Mr. Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like the tolls on the Severn bridge to be increased to the level of those on the Humber bridge, but if he would, he should make that clear. The tolls on the Humber bridge are much higher than those on the Severn bridge. I should add that the tolls on the Severn bridge were imposed during a period of Labour Government and were maintained by the previous Labour Government. Therefore, I find it rather bogus for the Labour party now to say that they should be abolished.

Mr. Coleman: The Minister will be aware of the blow dealt to my constituency by the announcement of the closure of Abernant colliery, and the considerable unemployment that it will bring if it goes ahead. The NUM has invoked a procedure that will mean a delay of nine months. Will the Minister use those nine months to secure for the Abernant valley alternative and adequate employment?

Mr. Walker: Certainly. I have already announced a programme of additional factory building and massively increased regional aid that is to take place in the next three years. That will be considerable help in job creation in those areas. I am glad to say that the local authority leaders in those areas very much appreciate that.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Secretary of State take note that earlier today I attended the UK 2,000 celebration in Cardiff, where I was presented by Richard Branson with a certificate from the Community Activities Training Organisation, of which I am chairman. Will he take note that, perhaps because he is a stranger to Wales, he has omitted the whole of the Ogwr borough and the valley from the Valleys initiative? Unemployment in Ogwr has increased from 3–7 per cent. in 1979 to 18.7 per cent. at present. Despite that increase, the Secretary of State and his Department have omitted the Ogwr valley from the Valleys initiative.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should await the announcement of the areas that are to be designated for the Valleys initiative.

Sir Raymond Gower: Bearing in mind the comments of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) to the effect that the Severn crossing is a vital lifeline for Welsh industry, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the progress being made to achieve a second crossing? Does he agree that it is most necessary?

Mr. Walker: Yes. It is important that the second crossing is in place by the mid-1990s. All projections have estimated that it will be in place by then. I am delighted that consultants have been appointed on a contract that has been made aimed at speeding up their decisions and their advice. It is vital for Wales that the Severn crossing is in place in good time.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the worst unadjusted unemployment figures in Wales last month were for Pwllheli, which has a rate of 24.7 per cent.? Yet Pwllheli is not even a development area. While welcoming the announcement of the reaction to the redundancies at Llangefni, may I ask the Secretary of State to say what steps will be taken by the WDA and by his Department to overcome the regular and cyclical unemployment that exists in places such as Pwllheli?

Mr. Walker: I am anxious that positive steps are taken in such areas, such as those I have discussed with the WDA and the Mid-Wales Development. A combination of those in the more rural areas of Wales will lead to a range of policies that add to the momentum of new business initiatives.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unemployment in Wales could be reduced still further if the NUM were to accept a six-day working week, so that British Coal could proceed with the £90 million investment in the new coal mine at Margam?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that the announcements made last week by British Coal made it absolutely clear that it was prepared to go ahead with Margam and all the jobs that that would create. It expressed the hope that the NUM will quickly agree to negotiate a six-day working week. If that does not take place there will be a sad and unnecessary loss of jobs to Wales.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State aware of the reported delegation led by the hon. Member for Macclesfied (Mr. Winterton) to the Department of Trade and Industry to plead against the relocation of Government jobs to Wales? What action does he intend


to take to ensure that the opposite view is presented to the Department of Trade and Industry, so that the jobs are relocated in Wales to give that area a boost in jobs?

Mr. Walker: Not for the first time, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I can say only that we have pointed out the considerable advantages to Wales and to all the people who work there.

Craft Industry (Report)

Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received the independent report prepared for his Department on the craft industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have received the report and will be speedily considering its recommendations with the main bodies involved.

Mr. Carlile: I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that there is considerable nervousness throughout the craft industry in Wales about changes that may be made in future. Will he ensure that whatever changes are made, they fit into the marketing calendar in such a way that they do not disrupt the normal pattern of business?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I shall certainly consider that point. If I may say so, as one of the few people who has read the report, the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his submission to Tony Ball on this were fully considered and are dealt with in the report. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that my objective is to ensure that the marketing of craft products in Wales is much improved.

Welsh Arts Council

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I met the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council in January, when we discussed a variety of issues relating to the arts in Wales.

Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister consider that it is an acceptable formulation for arts policy in Wales to be handled by the Arts Council of Great Britain and then by the Welsh Arts Council, rather than that the affairs of the Welsh Arts Council should be handled entirely by his Department, so integrating arts policy with cultural and other aspects of education policy which are already part of his Department's activities?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows the position of the Arts Council in Wales, and he will be aware of the considerable liaison between the Welsh Office and the Arts Council. I hope that we both take account of what the other is doing.

NHS Administrators

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what change he expects in the number of National Health Service administrators in Wales over the coming year.

Mr. Grist: Information from health authorities about projected staffing levels for 1988–89 will not be available until the end of March.

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend will remember that eight years ago the Conservative party manifesto promised to reduce the level of administration in the Health Service. Is it not scandalous that the administrative staff in the Health Service in Wales has increased by 14 per cent. since then, at a time when resources are stretched in the NHS?

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend should bear in mind that a large proportion of the administrative and clerical staff are involved in the provision of direct patient care. They are, for example, medical secretaries, ward clerks and health education staff. But the proportion of total costs in the Health Service in Wales taken up by management has decreased from 5·2 to 4·2 per cent.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the increased number of administrators certainly has not done much to cut the waiting time for many services, for example, cervical cancer tests? Some people in Gwynedd have had to wait 10 weeks for the result of a smear test. Surely that is unacceptable. The Welsh Office, as the responsible body for the activities of health authorities, must carry the can for that.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know that that was a regrettable lapse of time and that the target time is no more than eight weeks. His question is not in line with the initial question.

Wales Railway Centre

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress at the Wales Railway Centre; and if he has any plans to pay a visit there.

Mr. Peter Walker: With financial assistance from various public bodies, locomotives have been purchased, and work is under way on site security and other improvements at Bute street, Cardiff. Other commitments mean that I will not be able to visit the centre when the first locomotives are due to arrive later this month, but I hope that a ministerial visit can be made as soon as possible. I am sure we all recognise the contribution that my hon. Friend has made to this project.

Mr. Adley: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, will he, for me, please thank everybody in his Department, the WDA, the South Glamorgan county council, the Welsh Industrial and Maritime museum and all those involved? Is he aware that this is an outstanding example of co-operation between a whole range of public bodies? Can he please assure the House that he will continue to keep a close eye on its progress?

Mr. Walker: I think that the project will be successful, and I agree that great collaboration took place and brought about its success.

Mr. Michael: In welcoming the Secretary of State's answer, may I ask him whether he recognises that the centre is located in the area of highest unemployment in the South Glamorgan area, indeed such as to make Pwllheli, which itself has an unacceptable level, seem fairly reasonable? Will he bear that in mind in ensuring that employment opportunities for the people of that locality are concentrated on?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Rating Reform

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the community charge for caravan sites; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: I have received a number of representations about the application of the standard charge to caravans in Wales. In the light of those representations I have decided that the maximum multiplier for caravans should be set at the same level in Wales as is proposed for England.

Mr. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer will bring great delight to caravan site owners in Wales, because it will bring them into line with owners in England? As this is the number one industry in Wales, will caravan park owners continue to receive a rebate for collecting money on behalf of local authorities?

Mr. Grist: It is proposed that they will have a charge that they can make.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that the general impact of the proposals will have a devastating effect on all caravan parks? Will he reconsider this matter, because many of the people concerned with the management of the caravan parks are extremely anxious?

Mr. Grist: I do not believe that my hon. Friend should be so evidently alarmed. The multiplier will be in the hands of the local authority, and if it believes that the tourist potential and importance of caravans in its area are as great as my hon. Friend makes out, it is quite free to levy a multiplier of zero if it so wishes.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Bury

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last visited Bury in his official capacity; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. and learned Friend has not paid a visit to Bury in his official capacity, but hopes to visit many of the metropolitan boroughs of Greater Manchester during his period of office.

Mr. Sumberg: Is the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Bury is currently celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of one of its most famous sons, Sir Robert Peel? Will my right hon. and learned Friend send a message of good wishes to the people of Bury for the success of those celebrations? Does he agree that the Peelite legacy of social reform and radical Toryism is still alive and well in the modern Conservative party?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend has a lot in common with Sir Robert Peel—Sir Robert was a redhead, as is my hon. Friend. Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend will send a message of congratulations to the people of Bury, who are celebrating the birth of their favourite son. Any examination of the Tamworth manifesto will show that those same principles are alive and kicking in the present Conservative party.

Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reflect, when he next visits Bury, on the 4,000 job losses from Manchester city council? Many council employees live in Bury. On his way back to the airport or the railway station, will my right hon. and learned Friend call in at Manchester town hall to tell that authority that council overspending invariably ends in tears?

Mr. Butcher: I am not sure that that is entirely a matter for the Chancellor of the Duchy, whose prime responsibility is for the appointment of magistrates in Bury. However, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take careful note of my hon. Friend's comment.

Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that the greatest historical achievement of Sir Robert Peel was to split the Tory party from top to bottom? Is it not the case that the miserable squealing lot of today have not the guts to do the same?

Mr. Butcher: The right hon. Gentleman and you, Mr. Speaker, are great afficionados of political history, and I thought that the House might be interested in the following comment in a biography of Peel that describes the opposition to him:
the opposition resorted to all the obstructive devices which the lax rules of the House allowed … . the behaviour of the Commons, never noticeably decorous, rapidly degenerated. Shouting, groaning, hooting, stamping of feet and beating of sticks on the ground, became a regular accompaniment to debate; and it was said that there was one set of opposition MPs who were making a deliberate attempt to 'bellow Peel down'.
Peel was a brave man and you, Mr. Speaker, probably more than any other person in this House are probably thinking, "plus ca change."

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Redundant Churches

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the Commissioners' current policy for dealing with redundant churches.

Mr. Michael Alison (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners): The commissioners' policy is governed by the Pastoral Measure 1983, which provides for the future of a redundant church to be settled by a suitable alternative use: preservation by the redundant churches fund; care and maintenance by the diocesan board of finance on specified terms; or demolition. The Measure lays emphasise on finding a suitable use for the church, if at all possible, and that is what is most commonly achieved.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the need for decisions to be speedy enough to meet the needs of congregations once they have made the difficult decision that a church should go?

Mr. Alison: The statutory procedures enshrine the right of anyone—the clergy, patrons, local authorities and heritage and environmental groups — to make representations against draft schemes. That consideration determines the speed at which things happen. Much also depends upon the nature of the building. In simple cases, where a building is felt to lack distinction, its future can often be settled relatively quickly in a matter of months.


In more complex cases, where different views are held about the most suitable use, it may take longer to find the right solution. I fear that Holy Trinity, Bolton is a case in point.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the right hon. Gentleman is the nearest connection that we have to the Almighty in this place, will he say how it is possible for a house of God to become redundant?

Mr. Alison: The direct connection is a bipartisan one. I did not understand the exact point of hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I should say that the redundant churches fund, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-east (Mr. Thurnham) asked, is responsible for many churches, and many find an alternative use after a reasonable lapse of time.

WALES

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many out-patients in Wales were on hospital waiting lists in December 1987 for (a) hip replacement operations, and (b) cateract operations; and what were the corresponding figures for December 1986.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Waiting list information held by the Welsh Office is on the basis of specialties, not individual procedures. In the year to March 1987, in-patient waiting lists in Wales in trauma and orthopaedics and ophthalmology decreased by 0·7 and 10·4 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Livsey: Is the Minister aware that some of my constituents have been waiting for up to two years for cataract operations? Is that not disgraceful? What will he do about it? Will he allocate more funds for such bread-and-butter operations rather than the high-tech operations?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know of the £1 million which was made available in the current year and in the preceding year to help with that problem. He will also know of the extra funding which Powys health authority has used to purchase, for instance, operations at the Agnes Hunt hospital for residents of north Powys. It is now looking for similar places to purchase for residents of south Powys.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the dependence in north Wales on facilities outside Wales for many operations? Is he aware of the problem at present because of the almost complete closure of the hospital at Gobowen, because of difficulties in the neighbouring health authority? Does he have measures in mind to deal with the problem?

Mr. Grist: That case is the responsibility of Shropshire health authority and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. But we are keeping an eye on the matter.

Privatisation

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of responses to the consultation

documents on the privatisation of local authority leisure and sport services was in favour of privatisation and what percentage was against.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend issued a consultation document last September proposing that the management of local authority sport and leisure facilities should be subject to competitive tendering. The responses are being considered and it is hoped to make an announcement soon.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware of the magnificent record of Newport and Gwent councils in providing generous leisure services and the fact that they have been especially successful in providing leisure services to disadvantaged groups, including disabled and unemployed people? Is he also aware of the widespread dismay that those universally popular centres are likely to be handed over to people whose motive is not to give the community the leisure services that it desires, but to make money?

Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused. These centres will not be handed over. The intention is that the running of some of them should be put out to tender. The hon. Gentleman should await the final decisions in this matter before he speaks of the disadvantaged groups losing out.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that it would be nonsensical even to consider privatising sports centres that are situated on school premises? Does he recognise that in Powys there has been enormous success with local authority-run joint-use facilities, the result of which has been a trebling in the use of those facilities as compared with other areas in which there is no joint use with the local community?

Mr. Grist: We are giving deep consideration to that matter at the moment. 1 accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

Common Agricultural Policy

Sir Raymond Gower: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with farming unions in Wales with regard to those sectors of Welsh agriculture most affected by proposed reforms of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I and my officials have regular consultations with both the farming unions in Wales on all matters affecting Welsh agriculture.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when milk quotas were introduced there was a general feeling among farmers that that had been done after inadequate preparation and with inadequate warning? Will he therefore examine the possibility of outlining the effects that will be certain to ensue if changes are now to affect other parts of farm production?

Mr. Walker: There are certain difficulties about that. The ultimate decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers in Brussels, and we do not know the final terms that will be agreed on any particular topic. Through the Welsh Office we endeavour to have the closest possible communication with the farming unions and all farmers in the Principality.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Library (Purchasing Policy)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will raise with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) the question of guidance to the Librarian on the purchase for the Library of books which are the subject of court injunctions; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): No, Sir. I am satisfied that the Librarian has available to him any guidance he may wish to seek from the Library Sub-Committee of the Services Committee in carrying out his duties.

Mr. Dalyell: As the whole point of slapping injunctions on Wright was not about the national security of our country, but about domestic politics and people bugging and burgling their way through London; and as the whole point of slapping an injunction on Cavendish was, again, not about national security but about the smears on Harold Wilson, on Ted Short and on the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), are not those additional reasons why the House of Commons should have injuncted books available and should not have to rely on hon. Members presenting them to the Library? The Library should have the ability to purchase them.

Mr. Wakeham: Acquisition of books for the Library is a matter for the Librarian and not the Government. The Librarian is responsible to you, Mr. Speaker, and ultimately to the House as a whole. I understand that the Librarian would not seek to purchase or borrow any hook that is the subject of a legal ban on sale or publication.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the Librarian would not seek to purchase or borrow any book that was the subject of a ban, why was he willing to accept a copy of "Spycatcher" from me, with my compliments, and place it in the Library?

Mr. Wakeham: 1 understand that the Librarian was offered a copy by the hon. Gentleman and decided that the proper course was to make it available for reference to hon. Members only. He did that in view of the Government's declaration that, legal claims apart, they would not seek to prohibit the book's circulation or import into this country.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when a book of considerable public interest is being debated on an almost daily basis, and can be bought across the counter in Camden Passage, for example—I saw it there a couple of weeks ago — it is nonsense that it should not be available in the Library?

Mr. Wakeham: I repeat that the acquisition of books for the Library is not a matter for the Government, but for the Librarian—and ultimately, for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that many Conservative Members would find it deeply distasteful if such a book as "Spycatcher" were bought at public expense and placed in the Library of the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Skinner: It seems to me that there is more freedom in the Library than under this Government,despite the fact that the Government—and the right hon. Gentleman—were elected on the basis of freedom. We never stopped hearing about it in 1979, 1983 and 1987. The Prime Minister rabbited on about freedom, yet the Government do not even have the guts to authorise a book being placed in the Library for everyone to read.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think the hon. Gentleman could have been listening carefully. I said that it is not a question of the Government authorising anything.

WALES

Hospital Beds (Occupancy)

Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of bed occupancy in Welsh hospitals in January 1979; and what was the position in January.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The information is not availabl:! for the dates requested, as bed use data are collected quarterly. The figures for the quarters ended 31 March 1979 and 31 March 1987 — the latest date for which information is available—were 78 and 79 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Coleman: Does the Minister agree with the quotation:
The health of the people is the highest law"?
If the hon. Gentleman does agree, does he also agree that the modernisation and building of hospitals would assist with bed occupancy? Will he instruct those who plan hospital building services that they should take account of the environmental factors just as much as of economic and accountancy matters?

Mr. Grist: The matter that those people should take into account first and foremost is the provision of health care for patients.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend take into account the enormous disparities between different districts in Wales as to the proportion of money that is spent by those authorities and the return that they get on that money, and make sure that the best authorities' practice is copied by those with the worst practice?

Mr. Grist: It is our intention that authorities that are less efficient should follow the most efficient. My hon. Friend will be aware that capital and revenue finances are being equated throughout the Principality, to the advantage of his own health authority.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to encourage the development of home-grown manufacturing industry (a) in Wales and (b) in Cardiff, in respect both of new starts and of expansion by existing firms; and what targets he has set for each of the next five years.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I announced on 13 January my new programme of support for industry in Wales. It included a very large increase in the funds available and the introduction of a number of new initiatives and grant schemes, all of which are


available to indigenous Welsh industry. I am confident that the programme will have a major impact on the development of industry and business in Wales as a whole and in Cardiff as a major industrial and commercial centre in the Principality.

Mr. Michael: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the initiative to which he referred is complementary to rather than competitive with locally based initiatives, which have had such a success over recent years? Does he accept that locally based initiatives have proved successful and that the efforts by individuals and groups in small initiatives are deserving of nurture and assistance?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I do. When, recently, I saw the enterprise centre with the hon. Gentleman, I thought that that was a classic example of that initiative being put into practice, with considerable impact. One or two of the biggest successes that we have had recently in inward investment have been due to the combination of local and central Government initiatives, so I intend to do what the hon. Gentleman says.

Health Authorities (Funding)

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received concerning the levels of funding of the Welsh health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I and other Ministers have had meetings with health authority chairmen, Gwynedd Members of Parliament and Welsh Labour Members of Parliament and with the Minister of State. We have also met a deputation of members of Gwynedd health authority. On those occasions, along with other matters, the funding of health authorities was discussed. I have also received a number of letters from various organisations and members of the public commenting on the funding of health authorities.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that much of the concern about the closure of small hospitals in Gwynedd and elsewhere has arisen because of the lack of capital for building new, modern community hospitals, and that were those hospitals available there would be much less feeling about some of the changes that are now being proposed? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider proposals from Gwynedd health authority for such a capital programme, to bring community hospitals into the 21st century?

Mr. Walker: I have to consider any proposals made by any health authority, on any topic. With regard to the capital programmes, this year district health authorities

received £24–5 million capital funding for their discretionary use, an increase of 14 per cent. on 1986–87. The allocation for 1988–89 will be £29.5 million, an increase of nearly 21 per cent. over 1987–88.

Severn Crossing

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on recent progress in planning for a second Severn crossing.

Mr. Peter Walker: The consultants for the project, W. S. Atkins and Maunsell, are making good progress, and commencing on 9 February exhibitions showing plans of the route of the crossing will be held at various venues on both sides of the Severn estuary. The Government remain confident that the crossing can be provided by the mid-1990s.

Mr. Jones: I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's commitment to the earliest completion of the second crossing, but may I urge him to give the earnest consideration to exhibiting the proposals in Cardiff, as is presently being done in the Chepstow area, because they are of at least as much interest to the people of Cardiff and the many commercial organisations that are centred in the capital city?

Mr. Walker: Yes. That is a perfectly good, positive suggestion, which I shall take up.

British Coal

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Peter Walker: I met the deputy chairman of British Coal on 21 January. We discussed a range of issues affecting the south Wales coal industry.

Mr. Powell: Did the Secretary of State discuss the new mine at Margam? It is an issue that Labour Members have championed since 1979. In my area alone, 4,500 miners are out of work as a result of the pit closures that have taken place since 1979. The provision of 800 jobs in Margam would be ideal for those people, and I ask the Secretary of State to take action to get that mine started.

Mr. Walker: One of the matters that I discussed with the deputy chairman of British Coal was whether British Coal still wanted to proceed with Margam, as there had been speculation that it did not want to do so. He confirmed that it wished to proceed with Margam. It hopes that agreement will be reached with the unions for six-day working, in which case it would be a viable proposition. I very much hope that those negotiations will take place and that they will be successful.

Air Traffic (Air Misses)

Mr. Terry Dicks: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the near miss that took place on Saturday between a British Airways Tristar and a Bulgarian airliner.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): There was an air miss between a British Airways and a Bulgarian airliner on Saturday 6 February over Kent. The Civil Aviation Authority is investigating this incident. In view of the seriousness of the matter, my chief inspector of accidents has also begun an inspector's investigation. I can assure the House that the inspector's report will be published.

Mr. Dicks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. I am grateful for the fact that he has taken the unusual precaution of involving the air accident investigation branch in the matter. Will he ensure that there is a speedy outcome to the inquiry in order to allay public concern about safety in the skies?

Mr. Channon: We shall try to make the report as quick as possible. Evidence must be taken from a number of people—it cannot be done in two minutes. We shall try to make it as quick as possible, and it will be available for all to read. If the House wants copies placed in the Library, I shall be glad to arrange that.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Secretary of State recall that in a speech last October I raised this matter because of my concern, as a regular user of the air space, about growing air traffic control delays, and that he accused me of irresponsible scaremongering? Will he withdraw that accusation and pay serious attention to the growing anxiety about the number of air traffic controllers who have left the service recently, and to the problems over the transition to new technology? Will he take on board the suggestion of the American Federal Aviation Administration that anti-collision warning devicies should be fitted in cockpits?

Mr. Channon: Anti-collision warning devices are being investigated, and I hope that during the course of the year decisions will be arrived at. It is important to have an international agreement on the matter, otherwise there will be a ridiculous state of affairs.
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot withdraw what I said about his remarks last October, which were extremely unfair and unreasonable. I hope the House understands that the number of commercial aircraft involved in air misses in this country fell from 45 in 1977 to 16 in 1986, despite a large increase in traffic over the same period. The provisional number for the first four months of 1987 is four.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend not merely refuse to withdraw what he said about irresponsible scaremongering, but repeat it in spades today? Will he further undertake that the inquiry into this extremely unusual occurrence, and into an extremely well-run air traffic control system, will not be unduly hastened by irresponsible scaremongering demands, but will be thorough and clear? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saying that he will publish the report in full as soon as it is available.

Mr. Channon: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can give him the undertaking that he asked for in the last part of his question. It will be a full, clear and throrough report, and it will be published in full. This is a very unusual step to take, and I hope the House appreciates that I am taking this matter extremely seriously. The House must understand that this is an exceptional measure to take, but it is worth it in the circumstances.
As to the first part of my right hon. Friend's question, I adopt the formula that he used.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is an anomaly in all these matters, in that the body set up to operate air traffic control — National Air Traffic Control Services — is responsible to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for making judgments in these matters? Is it not time to re-examine the basic legislation so that the confidence that the public and the House wish to have can be demonstrated?

Mr. Channon: I do not see any need to change the legislation at present. The duties are absolutely clear. The CAA is responsible for aviation safety. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, National Air Traffic Control Services is responsible jointly to the CAA and to the Ministry of Defence, but responsibility for aviation safety rests with the CAA. I am concerned that the highest standards should be applied by the CAA in carrying out that function. The figures that I have given for the past few years, which show a considerable reduction in the number of air misses despite an enormous increase in traffic, lead one to believe that that responsibility has been carried out well. However, let us see how the inquiry reports—I rule out nothing at this stage.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is not the risk of such incidents increased by traffic congestion on existing routes across the English Channel? Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider additional routes? In particular, will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether the considerable restrictions currently placed on cross-Channel routes can be removed?

Mr. Channon: I do not think that the CAA takes the view that air space capacity in this country is overstretched. Nevertheless, I will consider the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who, I know, has a particular constituency point in mind.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the air traffic controllers have expressed great concern to the CAA about staff shortages? As a concrete example, will he consider why just one air traffic controller at Edinburgh airport is expected to deal with, on average, 24 incoming flights between 10 pm and 7 am'' What happens if that one man is suddenly taken ill? Is it satisfactory that at a major airport such as Edinburgh one person must carry that responsibility for nine hours without even being able to go for a cup of tea?

Mr. Channon: I think that that goes a little wide of the question, but negotiations are taking place between the CAA and the trade unions on the subject of working practices for shift-working staff in the National Air Traffic Control Services. I am extremely concerned that all who are involved in this very important work should feel that


their worries and grievances are carefully considered. I believe that that is happening. I am sure the House will agree that in general the work of the air traffic controllers of this country has been superb.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: As the incident took place on the border of my constituency and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), we are greatly concerned about the situation in the future. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I thoroughly endorse the sense of proportion that he has shown, as this is just one incident in an outstanding record by air traffic controllers and by pilots flying over this country? Although we wish to ensure that the report is made public, I hope that that sense of proportion will be maintained in relation to the high standards of safety, on which there is no compromise.

Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point with which I entirely agree. I have discussed the matter with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He was most anxious that the results of any investigation should be published, and I have managed to satisfy that wish, too.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Minister aware that if the EDRP project—the European demonstration reprocessing plant—goes ahead, there will be a further 200 flights per year carrying plutonium from France to Dounreay, involving a double risk from nuclear waste and additional flights? If he wishes to increase public safety, he should help to stop that project. If it goes ahead, what guarantees can he give?

Mr. Channon: That is an entirely separate matter. As I have already said, responsibility for aviation safety—the only part of the hon. Gentleman's question that is relevant to my Department—rests with the CAA, which will obviously take great care to ensure that all flights are safe. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise specific points, such as that which he mentioned today, perhaps he will get in touch with the chairman of the CAA.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the statistics on near misses, but is it not a fact that the incident over the weekend was only one in a sequence, and that that has brought some justifiable concern among the public? I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to set up a separate inquiry. I suggest that until public concern can be allayed any future near miss incident be subjected to the same procedure.

Mr. Channon: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that, in the various categories of near misses, the ones that are most worrying to the public are those where there is a definite, or possible, risk, rather than those in which it is later discovered that there was no risk whatsoever. As I have told the House, there has been a massive reduction in serious incidents over the years. I hope that that trend is continuing. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said about the general question of near misses. I have told the House that this is a serious matter, and that is why I have taken this unusual course today.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that it does not help to allay public anxiety about near misses if he continually says that it is scaremongering if people raise serious issues about air traffic safety and air traffic control? Is it not the case that this matter is so serious that he has taken this unusual step?
Is not the fact that the CAA is investing more money in equipment a vindication of claims that the existing equipment is not up to scratch to face the future? Will the Secretary of State take up the air traffic controllers' offer to discuss matters with him and the CAA, as it is clear that there is concern about the number of air traffic controllers on duty and the amount of work that they have to do in the time available? In addition to publishing his inspectors' report, a proposal which I welcome, will the Secretary of State publish the CAA report? Will he make sure that these matters are published swiftly? What guarantee has he that we can get access to the foreign pilots, who may not be available to give their evidence direct?

Mr. Channon: That is something that my air accident investigation branch will have to pursue. I see no reason to assume that that is at all likely.
As to the question of equipment and investment by the CAA, we are appraising a particular scheme. We have authorised massive investment by the CAA. Aviation safety is a paramount objective, and I shall go on authorising sensible investment in order to improve the situation still further. That is the crucial point.
As to "irresponsible scaremongering" I have not accused the hon. Gentleman of that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to read the speech of the right hon. Member the leader of the Liberal party to see whether he agrees with me or not. I did not raise that matter this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman did, and I had hoped that it was an incident long since forgotten.
This was a serious incident, which is why it is right that the public should have the full facts placed in front of them. The air accident investigation report will provide a useful public service. We shall have to wait and see what it says, and if it does allay public anxiety, as I hope it will, that will be good. If there are reasons for public anxiety, they must be tackled and dealt with.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I will take points of order afterwards.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Private notice questions are an extension of Question Time. We will take points of order at the proper time.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not taking it now. The hon. Gentleman can raise his point of order at the proper time.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench spokesman. He knows that we take points of order at the proper time, and today that is after the Standing Order No. 20 application.

Ford Dispute

Mr. Michael Meacher: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Ford dispute.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The House will be aware that a dispute is currently taking place at the Ford motor company. The resolution of the dispute is a matter for the company, its employees and their union representative.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware, first, that this dispute would now be settled if the Government's antiunion laws had not required a final ballot? Is he aware that "ballotitis" can block solutions which would otherwise have been achieved by patient, work place negotiations?
On the substantive issue of pay, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the company is now forecasting a 10 per cent. increase in productivity this year? Is it not therefore reasonable that Ford workers should participate fully in the benefits of their own efficiency?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the paintshop and assembly workers, who comprise the majority of Ford workers, have had a real pay increase of only 3 per cent. since 1979, when average real earnings in industry as a whole have risen by 18 per cent.? Is he further aware that, by contrast, in 1986 — the last year for which information is available—Ford directors paid themselves a 19 per cent. increase, the Ford chairman had a 41 per cent. increase over the two years before that, and Ford shareholders had a rise of 206 per cent.?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that average earnings at Ford, currently £193 a week, are far below the national male average wage of more than £224 a week? Is he also aware that Ford's latest offer would lead to falling unit labour costs, so that the deal would be self-financing? Clearly, there is more money available.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that productivity at Ford is now rising very fast—it was 8 per cent. over the past two years—and would fully cover the extra costs of the deal? Does he accept, therefore, that the Ford workers' claim is far from excessive, and that the 7 per cent. pay offer means that, compared with directors and shareholders, they are not being offered a fair share in the company's rising prosperity?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there have been any Government communications with the Ford motor company, telling it not to budge? Will he now use his influence urgently to get both sides back into negotiations? Does he accept that passively to allow this strike to proceed would be the biggest abdication of responsibility on the industrial scene for many years?

Mr. Fowler: I wish again to emphasise that there is no ministerial responsibility in this dispute. The responsibility lies with the company, the employees and the unions. Individual pay negotiations are matters for the parties concerned.
The hon. Gentleman's point about industrial relations ballots is, quite frankly, absurd. A ballot gives immunity if strike action is taken; there is no compulsion to take strike action following a ballot. Indeed, in this instance, the national union negotiators recommended acceptance of the revised offer.
The one matter about which we can be absolutely clear is that the public do not want a return to the days bequeathed to us by the last Labour Government.

Mr. Robin Squire: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me, as someone who represents many Ford workers at Dagenham, that the position outlined by the Government is absolutely right? There has been a welcome increase in productivity during the past 10 years, but even now Ford lags behind equivalent works in Europe. Will not the consequences of the dispute be, sadly, the loss of both money and work for this country? Component manufacturers will also be affected and our country's competitiveness will be damaged.

Mr. Fowler: I very much hope that all the parties involved will take account of what my hon. Friend has said. I repeat that I do not believe that it is either sensible or helpful for me to intervene.

Mr. David Alton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the only way that the antediluvian practices of confrontation can be put behind us is by having more democratic practices in companies such as Ford, where workers really can have a share in any increased profits? Does he realise that that is the only way to put the days of the cloth cap behind us?

Mr. Fowler: The dispute is entirely a matter for Ford, the employees, the unions and the negotiators.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad to see us going back to the times when Ford workers were more concerned with exporting their jobs than exporting cars?

Mr. Fowler: There is, of course, always that risk. Industrial disputes destroy jobs. We all know the consequences of strikes, but, as this is the first day of the dispute, it is too early to make assessments.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is it not clear that the Government insisted that there should be a ballot before workers took action? The workers have had two ballots and have decided to take action. [Interruption.] Conservative Members have always insisted that it should be placed in the hands of the workers and not of the trade union bureaucrats. As the workers have said that they do not even like the settlement put forward by the trade union leadership and are not prepared to accept it, why do the Government complain? This is the action of the workers themselves and I support them in their struggle.

Mr. Fowler: The responsibility for industrial action lies entirely with those people taking industrial action. The first ballot gave immunity if strike action was taken, There was no compulsion to take such strike action and the national union negotiators recommended the acceptance of the revised offer. The second ballot is entirely unaffected by industrial relations law. To do this by plants, which was the previous way, is a very precarious arrangement for deciding these things.

Mr. David Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ford was right to try for a three-year wage deal and that other motor manufacturers would be right to try for that too, because it brings a period of stability? Further, it ought to be easier to achieve because of low inflation. As the Government are an employer, should we not all move towards three-year wage deals?

Mr. Fowler: We must aim for more flexibility in these arrangements, but it is a matter for the parties concerned. Ford should aim for the stability to which my hon. Friend refers, as should any other company.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is perfectly reasonable for a group of workers, who have done so much to increase productivity at Ford and the total profits of Ford worldwide, by the contribution from the United Kingdom, to press for a fair share of the profits? I do not see why Conservative Members should disagree with that.

Mr. Fowler: I hope that those who take that view will also take into account the likely profits over the next few years and the impact of industrial disputes on those profits.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, on previous occasions, when hon. Members on both sides of the House have attempted to put questions to the Prime Minister, for which she has no ministerial responsibility, those questions have been disallowed? Is my right hon. Friend not astonished that he should be answering a question today for which he has no ministerial responsibility?

Mr. Fowler: I have said that I have no ministerial responsibility for this, but the rest of the question is not a matter for me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is like a rerun of a 10-year-old film? In 1978, the Ford workers were after 17 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon Friends, headed by the Prime Minister who was then Leader of the Opposition, tabled a motion. The Ford workers ought to get 17 per cent. now. The Secretary of State says that it has nothing to do with the Government, but they have already put up the bank rate by 0.5 per cent. and the chances are that it will go up even more if the Ford strike lasts seven weeks, as it did in 1978.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly.

Mr. Skinner: The stock exchange has lost 40 points today. It has much to do with the Government. They were responsible way back.

Mr. Fowler: The comparison with 1978 is absurd, for the reason that, in 1978, we saw total chaos, with unions attacking the last Labour Government's pay policy. One thing that we have learned, and that the public will want, is not to go back to the days of 1978 and, indeed, the days of the last Labour Government.

Mr. David Sumberg: Is it not ridiculous for Opposition Members to raise the matter in the fond hope that the era of beer and sandwiches will return to my right hon. Friend's Department? Would not Opposition Members be far better employed in condemning the strike and using what little influence they have in trying to get the work force back on the job?

Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend said, they would be far better involved in trying to reach some sensible conclusion to the dispute.

War Crimes

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about war crimes committed during the second world war.
The House will be aware of recent allegations that suspected war criminals have found haven in this country. Lists of names have been sent to us by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and others. Inquiries conducted by my Department suggested that some of the people named are still living in this country, and we undertook to consider what action, if any, should be taken.
The legal position is as follows. We would normally deal with alleged crimes in foreign countries by way of extradition. However, all the cases in question relate to crimes committed in territories now controlled by the Soviet Union, with whom we have no extradition treaty. Nor do the courts in the United Kingdom at present have jurisdiction to try offences of murder and manslaughter committed abroad when the accused was not a British citizen at the time of the offence. If we were to prosecute in these cases we should need to legislate to extend the jurisdiction of our courts.
The passage of time does not lessen the horror with which we now read about wartime atrocities, but it does inevitably complicate the investigation of any allegations that might be made.
I decided that it was impossible to take this issue forward without a better idea of what evidence existed. I asked the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to provide evidence to substantiate the allegations. In July of last year the centre provided us with a large quantity of documentary material. This material contained serious allegations against a number of people. It was carefully considered within Government. Our conclusion was that, as it stood, the material would not be sufficient to support a criminal prosecution, even if there were jurisdiction.
In the circumstances, it is clear that further work has to be done. I have therefore decided to appoint an independent inquiry to examine material relating to the allegations, to conduct interviews — possibly including interviews in the Soviet Union—and to consider the likely value of the evidence that could become available to United Kingdom court proceedings. In the light of its assessment, the inquiry team will advise whether the law should be amended to take jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed overseas by persons now resident in this country.
In the event of such a change it would, of course, be for the prosecuting authorities to decide, after such investigations as they may think necessary, whether any action should be taken in individual cases. I have placed the inquiry's full terms of reference in the Library. I am grateful that Sir Thomas Hetherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, the former Crown Agent in Scotland, have agreed to undertake the inquiry.
All of us who have considered these matters recognise that they are intensely difficult. The allegations are serious and must be pursued, but I do not believe that the material now before us would justify me in proposing to Parliament a change in the law. The inquiry that I have announced will enable us all to form a clearer view of the weight to be


given to the allegations, and will enable us to determine whether it would be right to propose a change in the law to extend the jurisdiction of the courts.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I offer the Home Secretary our general support for what he has proposed. He is right to emphasise that the passage of time does not lessen the horror of wartime atrocities, but he is equally right to say, or to imply, that the passage of almost half a century raises problems of principle and of practice which clearly require him and the Government to proceed with care.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman three specific questions and make it clear that they do not in any way imply that we disagree with the general course of action that he has proposed. First, will the Home Secretary explicitly confirm that the only option that he is considering is prosecution in British courts, not extradition?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the rules of evidence under which statements to the inquiry are to be made, because, presumably, some of the people who make statements may—at least in theory—eventually be subject to prosecution? Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman give us at least a tentative assessment of how long he expects the inquiry to take?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's general support. Normally, for crimes committed abroad, the remedy that we would seek to apply would be that of extradition. However, as the right hon. Gentleman implies, there would be great difficulties in this case, as we have no extradition arrangements with the Soviet Union, as the crimes alleged were committed in territory over which the Soviet Union now has control and as no other country appears to have a standing in this matter. That is why we have taken this course of action. This is not a statutory inquiry or an inquiry in which rules of evidence apply. It is an inquiry outside the ordinary process of investigation to allow the Government and Parliament to decide whether there is a case strong enough to justify changing the law. The inquiry will start reasonably soon and, although it is for the inquirers to decide—I have not fixed a strict time limit—I think that it will take them about a year.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a bad decision and is likely to lead to what others would call a witch-hunt? Is he aware that British courts have never sought to try alleged crimes committed long ago by foreigners in foreign countries, for the very good reason that such evidence would be inadmissible by ordinary standards? Therefore, is it not very wrong for the Government to attempt to make special arrangements for a special class of people accused of having committed offences a long time ago, which the British people would far rather not pursue? Is my right hon. Friend not surrendering to a lobby whose main motivations are hatred and revenge?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that my hon. Friend's last point is fair. However, I am aware of his general approach, with which I know many people agree. I do not believe that with the present state of our information I would be justified in coming to the House to propose a change in the law to assert jurisdiction. However, I would say to my hon. Friend that very serious allegations have been made. Although the passage of time makes it more difficult to

deal with those allegations, many people would not be at all happy if we followed a quite different course from that followed by Australia and Canada, for example, and said, "We really cannot be bothered to find out any more about it."

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that the all-party group on war crimes, of which I am chairman, will welcome his statement? May I take this opportunity publicly to thank him and his Department for the help that they have given us during the past year?
Will the information that is coming in about the murder of RAF aircrew in prisoner-of-war camps and the murder of Marine commandoes be considered relevant, or will it be missed out from the terms of reference?
On paragraph 3 of the terms of reference—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Australia and Canada—will he point out to the two distinguished members of the committee that it would be worthwhile visiting Canada and Australia because they have done a great deal of work on this matter in the past year? Will the report be published, and will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the final decision on the changes will be for him and for the House?

Mr. Hurd: The terms of reference, which are being placed in the Library, ask the inquirers
to obtain and examine relevant material … relating to allegations that persons who are now British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom committed war crimes during the Second World War".
There follows a definition of what that means. It would be open to the inquirers to visit Australia or Canada, although they could probably obtain the information that they needed without doing so. I think that their main job —although it is for them to say—is to get to grips with the allegations that have been made.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the report would be published. That rather depends on the detail that it goes into. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) pointed out, there might be relationship with possible further proceedings. Therefore, I should not like to guarantee that. The whole purpose of the exercise is to enable not just the Government but the House to reach an informed conclusion.

Mr. John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many will welcome the course of action that he has proposed to the House today, not least because of the horrific nature of the allegations and because persons resident in the United Kingdom may be associated with those allegations? Will he confirm that the two distinguised gentlemen who are to carry out the inquiry will not be inhibited from going anywhere in the world to test the evidence for the allegations and interview witnesses?

Mr. Hurd: They wil not be inibited by me, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. As he knows, given that serious allegations have been made, we have been caught in something of a vicious circle. We cannot learn more about the allegations through the ordinary processes of investigation, because we have no jurisdiction, but I do not think that I can justify taking that jurisdiction until we know more. The purpose of this proposal is to break out of that vicious circle.

Dr. David Owen: I welcome the decision to have this rather unusual form of inquiry. Will the Home Secretary tell us whether it is possible to extend such an inquiry to cover the case of the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, which is a matter of great concern in this country? It is patently obvious that Mr. Waldheim lied about his involvement with SS commandoes.—[Interuptioni This is a matter that I believe should be looked into. We are talking about the person appointed Secretary General of the United Nations—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is rather wide of today's statement.

Dr. Owen: Would the Home Secretary be prepared to consider finding some way in which the British interest in the allegations associated with Mr. Kurt Waldheim could be inquired into?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than to suppose that that is a matter for me or or the inquiry.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of all of us for his genuine concern and determination to ensure that this matter comes to a reasonable conclusion? However, does he agree that time is of the essence, and that as long as we will not amend the law to provide the procedures other countries will not provide us with the necessary evidence? Does he agree also that while we say that we will not amend the law until we have that evidence we are locked into a completely unproductive spiral that will gladden the hearts of Nazi sympathisers everywhere?

Mr. Hurd: I very much hope that we have found a way of breaking out of the spiral and that all those who may have evidence that is relevant will co-operate with the inquiry so that at the end of the day— I hope that that will not be too far distant — the Government and Parliament will be able to decide whether to make the very serious decision to extend our jurisdiction.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Home Secretary accept that that is precisely why we welcome the inquiry? However, it is important that the timing should not be such that the inquiry is allowed more than the reasonable time that it will need to get information. Would it not be possible for us to examine the question of jurisdiction and of changes in the law while the inquiry is taking place? If there were a second period, after the completion of the inquiry, we could be talking about a time span of two years. Given the number of years that have already passed, is that not too long?

Mr. Hurd: I examined that possibility carefully, but I concluded that I simply did not have thc wherewithal-and that the House would not have the wherewithal—to make an informed decision on a matter of' very great importance about which many hon. Members would have misgivings, as has become clear from some of our exchanges today.

Mr. John Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is welcome that there should be a legal structure to deal with cases that took place in the past, it is also highly desirable that we should have legal powers to deal with such matters should anything unfortunately arise in the future? Can my right hon. Friend tell us the number of names on the list that might give rise to action in the future?

Mr. Hurd: There were 17 names on the Simon Wiesenthal list. We believe that 10 may be alive in the United Kingdom. There were 34 names on a list provided through Scottish Television plc, of which we think that seven may be alive in the United Kingdom.
The British courts have jurisdiction over British citizens who have committed manslaughter or murder abroad, but do not have jurisdiction over people who may now be British citizens, or who may now live here and have done so for some time, if the allegations relate to events before they became British citizens or before they came to live here.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that there is to be an evidential inquiry into these cases, but does he accept that it is rather odd to say that a decision on the jurisdiction principle will be made only when the evidence against individuals is assessed? Will he assure the House that if the inquiry shows that the normal DPP criteria apply and that there is more than a 50 per cent. prospect of success in any prosecution, he will personally support jurisdictional changes?

Mr. Hurd: The first thing is for the House to judge, on the basis of the report, the wide question whether it wishes to change the law. As I have said—

Mr. Carlile: It is the right hon. Gentleman's decision.

Mr. Hurd: It is not my decision. It would be a decision for the House. I do not think that that matter is at all straightforward, for the reasons that I have often given. Therefore, it is for the House to decide, when we are more fully informed.
As I said in my statement, there must be a clear distinction between any decision to change the law, which is a matter for Parliament, and any decision by the prosecuting authorities to prosecute in a particular case.

Mr. Tony Marlow: May I caution my right hon. Friend to remember that, while those who have been active in this issue have been jumping up to praise him today, a large number of his hon. Friends will be deeply suspicious of and concerned about such retrospective legislation? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how far such retrospective legislation would go? Would we, for example, find ourselves prosecuting the Israeli soldier who savagely beat to death a 15-year-old Palestinian boy if that soldier later came to stay in this country?

Mr. Hurd: The answer to the second question is clearly no. My hon. Friend is leaping ahead a long way. I am not proposing any legislation, retrospective or otherwise.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I, and, I believe, most other hon. Members, not only appreciate his own determination to see that justice is done and that evil monsters who may he among us are prosecuted, but totally reject what lay behind the odious question from his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? Does the Secretary of State not understand that some of us are deeply anxious about the consignment of urgent and anguished questions to a committee, however distinguished, because the distance between a committee and a pigeon hole is sometimes very short? Is he not able to give us some indication that we may have at least an interim report and statement before the summer recess? Could he,


at least, assure the House that a report will be made about what is happening? Why has he omitted from his legal possibilities that which lies in his hands, namely, the stripping of British citizenship from people who obtained it by fraud, when it is in the common interest and the public good so to do?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman, whose zeal in such matters is well known, rather underestimates the seriousness of the problem. He was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). What lay behind my hon. Friend's question—not his second supplementary question, but his first—was a perfectly reasonable concern about the issues involved. I do not think that this is a matter on which interim statements or reports would make a great deal of sense.
The question of depriving someone of British citizenship is, of course, open, but it does not meet the point, one way or the other. I certainly do not exclude it as a possible measure, although it would not really satisfy anybody.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming today's announcement, but may I offer a word of caution on two issues? One is the time scale. One wonders whether an inquiry lasting a year will merely put the whole issue on the back burner for another 12 months and, thereafter, when the committee reports, the matter will go into the pigeon hole that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) suggested.
My second word of caution relates to my right hon. Friend's apparent reluctance to guarantee publication of the document when it is finally produced. One of the difficulties that has faced the all-party war crimes group is that a document that was shelved in 1948 has only recently come to light. We do not want that to happen again.

Mr. Hurd: Everyone is advising me to be cautious. I do not think that 1 need that advice, because I think that I have been very cautious, and with good reason.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about publication, but he will understand that I do not know how the inquirers will frame their report or how much detail they will want to go into. Obviously, there is a connection between the amount of detail in the report and possible later proceedings. That is why I cannot give an absolute guarantee this afternoon about publication. The whole point of the exercise is to enable the House in particular, Parliament in general, and the public, to come to a more reasoned and informed view than they can at the moment.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am sure that the Home Secretary will welcome the support of the Opposition in saying that murder, genocide and manslaugher have no statute of limitations against them. Therefore, we welcome his statement. We also welcome the fact that he is preparing to change the law of the land to accommodate a trial, should that be necessary. However, will he answer the two specific questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked about the rules of evidence at the inquiry? Will there be rules of evidence at the inquiry, and, if so, how will they apply? Will statements made to the

inquiry be admissible in evidence? Will the right hon. Gentleman not exclude extradition where that might be feasible?

Mr. Hurd: I should correct the hon. Gentleman. I am not preparing to change the law of the land. I am setting up an inquiry to see whether those who have greater access to the facts than any of us have at the moment would feel, on the basis of that inquiry, that there is a case for changing the law of the land. This is not a judicial inquiry or evidential in that sense. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's second point arises.
The hon. Gentleman's third point was about extradition. I have explained the difficulties. Choosing my words with care, I do not think that it would be suitable to arrange for extradition to the Soviet Union in these respects. Neither Israel nor West Germany, nor other countries which have been mentioned from time to time in this context, seems to fit the case.

Mr. Toby Jesse!: Following the reference to witch-hunting by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), is my right hon. Friend aware that whatever else witches might or might not have done they did not murder 6 million people? Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that we are talking not about one murder, six, 600 or 6,000 murders, but about 6 million cold-blooded murders of men and women, including about 1 million children?

Mr. Hurd: It is because of the intensity and enormity of the total war crimes that they continue to arouse this kind of response, which is entirely understandable. That is a reason for not saying, "It is all too difficult. We must forget and do nothing about it." Equally, my hon. Friend will recognise the difficulties of changing the law in this regard, which is why we need to proceed steadily.

Mr. David Winnick: Why should it be considered by some of the right hon. Gentleman's critics to be a matter of revenge that those who are alleged to have been responsible for some of the worst crimes and atrocities ever committed should be brought to justice? Surely it is justice, not revenge, that we are concerned about. Does the Home Secretary agree that the serious allegations made against individuals who are now living in Britain, the allegations against the President of Austria and the one or two other cases that have come to light illustrate that what the allies did not do at the end of the last war, but what they promised to do when the extermination policy was being carried out, was to carry out a de-Nazification policy which would have meant that those who were responsible for the crimes to which I have just referred, as have some Conservative Members, would have been brought to justice much sooner? They should have been brought to justice much sooner. Indeed, that should have happened during the first few years after the war against Hitler had ended.

Mr. Hurd: I do not want to go into that. That is raking over history. We are concerned with a number of serious allegations against a small number of people who have been living in Britain for some time. In deciding whether to change our law, an important aspect is that we are dealing with very serious allegations.

Mr. Tom Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that before contemplating changing our law we should hesitate to pursue cases for which a large part


of the evidence will necessarily come from a doubtful source, namely, the Soviet Union, whose judicial and human rights record must be viewed with the strictest reservations?

Mr. Hurd: That is why I made specific reference to the inquirers getting to grips with the evidence in the Soviet Union. They will want to assess that evidence.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Home Secretary accept that those hon. Members who have had constituency cases and have discussed those cases with Mr. William Chalmers, as the Crown Agent, have the highest regard for his intelligence and integrity? How on earth will he set about disentangling such immensely complicated matters? One case, highlighted by Scottish Television, meant disentangling events in Riga in 1944. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Polish 1st Armoured Division, many of whose members settled in my constituency, there were Latvian, Ukrainian and Polish groups? The complexities of the internecine strife that took place nearly half a century ago are enormously difficult to disentangle.
What facilities is Mr. Chalmers to have? Is he to go to the Balkan republics with interpreters? Will the Russians co-operate, and who exactly will he see? What is the Russian view of all this?

Mr. Hurd: The professed view of the Soviet Union has been that throughout it has been as anxious as anyone to establish the facts and to bring to justice people who are alleged to have committed serious crimes. There is no question about the principle. The inquirers will find out for themselves how it will work in practice. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that the job of disentangling such a mass of information that is now so old will be extremely difficult. They will have to establish whether they think an inquiry is feasible. They will have to report to us so that we can judge whether the prospect of and the need for an inquiry would justify a change in the law.

Mr. Barry Porter: May I pursue the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)? If the inquirers produce evidence that will create the probability of convictions in

a British court—I share the reservations about whether that will be possible—why has my right hon. Friend not undertaken to bring legislation before the House to give the courts jurisdiction? If he is not prepared to give such an undertaking, what is the point of an inquiry in the first place?

Mr. Hurd: At the moment I do not have the wherewithal to persuade the House that it would be right to change the law. When the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, in response to my invitation, provided further material in July last year, we sent it to the prosecuting authorities, who examined it and came to the conclusion that they could not proceed any further because they did not have the jurisdiction, and that the material would not be sufficient to support a criminal prosecution. That is why we need to learn more and to set up an inquiry to establish whether there is a case for changing the law. After that it would be a separate matter, not for the House, but for the prosecuting authorities, to decide whether to bring prosecutions in individual cases.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Home Secretary said that 17 individuals could possibly be subject to that evidential inquiry. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed anxiety that the inquiry will be a pigeon-hole operation. The Home Secretary denies that, but what means of monitoring the movement of those 17 individuals are to be employed in case the birds fly the coop and establish themselves in someone else's pigeon hole in the meantime?

Mr. Hurd: There are no grounds or scope for doing that.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is there not a dilemma, in that if the House is to make up its mind about the inquiry, the report must be published in full? If it is published in full and someone is prosecuted, the person accused would be able to argue that the publication of the report had prejudiced his fair trial.

Mr. Hurd: I have made that point twice in less elegant language. My hon. Friend will have to leave the matter to me. He will be able to twist my tail about it later. It may well be difficult to decide how much should be published. It may well be that the inquirers will produce their report in a form that can be published.

British Petroleum plc

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for action to prevent further purchase of shares by the Kuwaitis in BP, Britain's largest oil producer.
The matter is urgent because the British Government are standing idly by while Arabs buy up Britain's oil industry and North sea operations. The Arabs, by close of play on Friday, owned nearly 20 per cent. of BP. To avoid generating public hostility they have been busily buying BP shares through London broking houses. The Government should act urgently to prevent the sell-out of Britain's interests. We need action now because the undertaking given by the Kuwaiti investment authorities that they have no ambition to control BP has not prevented them from approaching the figure of 30 per cent. of the shares when a full bid would be triggered.
The OFT has not acted because it is powerless to do so. The matter is important because the Government's negligence in allowing that development to take place should be exposed. The Government created the special conditions in which an increasingly unnecessary privatisation on the back of a collapsing stock market could be used by the Kuwaitis to pick up Britain's oil assets on the cheap. Furthermore, the Government have been prepared to stand idly by and allow City underwriters to offload their BP stocks on to the Kuwaitis, enabling the Government to avoid the embarrassment of having to buy back shares under the infamous Lawson agreement.
If the Kuwaitis had not bought the shares, the Government now would be making excuses for a failed privatisation. In effect, they have used the Kuwaitis to save their political skin. The matter is specific because the Government should be required to give a clear statement as to why Britain's national interests are to be sold.
The other week, Britoil was calling for a white knight to save them from the predatory actions of BP. Today, I am asking the Government to act as a white knight to save BP from the predatory actions of the Kuwaitis.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
further purchases of shares in BP by the Kuwaiti Investment Office.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised can be considered under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Air Traffic (Air Misses)

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
Issues arising from the statement by the Secretary of State for Transport today about air misses.
I could not give you notice, Mr. Speaker, before you took the Chair today, because I did not know what was going to be in the statement.
I regard the serious air miss as an event which would have resulted in a collision had at least one pilot not taken avoiding action without the instructions to do the same from air traffic control. Today the Secretary of State for Transport gave the House only the number of serious air misses without giving the number of passengers exposed to risk in each event. The true measure of danger surely should be a compound of the number of serious air misses, as I define them, coupled with the number of passengers and crew put at risk in each event.
As time passes the size of aircraft is increasing and so is the number of passengers in many cases carried in them, even if the load factor is not. Therefore, it is not adequate to be complacent because the number of events of serious air misses may reduce, if the total number of passengers at risk on the formula which I have described is either static or increasing. It is that which needs to be examined. Had the British Airways pilot not taken avoiding action uninstructed by air traffic control, there would have been the greatest number of passengers killed in British air space ever.
Finally, the Secretary of State did not say that the inquiry has power to compel evidence on oath or affirmation from the Maley pilot who was within British air space then, but probably will not be when the inquiry takes place.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the issues arising from the statement by the Secretary of State for Transport about air misses.
Again, I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I hope that he will find other opportunities to raise this matter in the House.

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 3

ASSISTANCE BY THE COMMISSIONER IN ACTIONS AGAINST EMPLOYERS

`Provisions analogous to those made by section 19 of this Act (Assistance by the Commissioner) shall apply to—

(a) proceedings in an industrial tribunal brought by a union member against his employer under section 58 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as amended (complaint by an employee of unfair dismissal by reason of trade union membership, activities or non-membership); and
(b) proceedings in an industrial tribunal brought by a union member against his employer under section 23 of the said Act of 1978 as amended (complaint by an employee of action short of dismissal by his employer for the purpose of deterring him from becoming a union member or taking part in trade union activities or in order to compel him to remain or become a union member, or for the purpose of penalising him for doing one of the above or for non-membership of a union).'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to the new so-called commissioner for trade union members and it aims to provide a right to assist union members to enforce certain rights against employers, in a Bill which is drafted to limit the target to trade unions.
Obviously, the title of commissioner for the rights of trade union members is a misnomer if the commissioner exists solely for the purpose of enforcing rights against trade unions. By itself that role would scarcely provide the commissioner with even a part-time job. In Committee we argued that if the evidence of union abuse was as extensive as the Government's paranoia would suggest, union members would be beating down the Certification Officer's doors with complaints. As it is, we read with a slight sense of anti-climax in paragraph 6 of the Green Paper that the total number of cases since 1984 in which the Certification Officer has issued a decision is a mere 19. The total number of cases in which unions have been found not to have met their statutory duties is precisely 10. If the Certification Officer has not been beating back hordes of vexatious litigants, or any litigants, the courts, which are the second avenue of redress, have been even less overburdened. Paragraph 6 of the Green Paper admits that not a single union member has sought a declaration or enforcement order from the courts. That compares—this is the whole purpose of our amendment—with the 30,000 complaints of unfair dismissal made every year against employers, one tenth or 3,000 a year of which are upheld by tribunals.
If the Government are genuinely solicitous about the rights of trade union members, why will they not extend the powers of the commissioner to help union members enforce their rights against employers? Is not the right not to be unfairly dismissed extremely important? Why should

the commissioner not help a trade union member enforce what is perhaps the most basic employment right of all: the right to uphold the contract of employment under which the employee earns a living? What about the collective rights to consultation and information about redundancies or proposed takeovers, and the job losses that might be involved? What about the right to be a member of a union in the first place? What about the right to have recognition of a trade union representative to look after the interests of trade union members in respect of health and safety? It is well known that many employers ignore their statutory responsibilities in that area, which is a major reason why in recent years there has been an increase in serious injuries at the work place.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: For example, King's Cross.

Mr. Meacher: King's Cross is certainly one example and there are many others in the construction industry and in many areas of manufacturing.
Perhaps the commissioner could have played a useful role in supporting court action over GCHQ. What better example could there be of the need for a commissioner to protect trade unionists against their employer? There could not be a better case for the involvement of the commissioner than when the Government, as the employer at GCHQ, sought abitrarily and unilaterally to remove the right of employees to be a member of a union. From the Carlton club memoirs it seems that the Government may intend to consider some sort of unilateral removal of trade union rights in respect of union members in the National Health Service.

Mr. Bob Clay: Does my hon. Friend agree that the commissioner could have assisted trade union members or their families who died as a result of the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, which was owned by P and 0? Is it not interesting to note what difficulties those people have had, while P and 0 can snap its fingers every five minutes and summon judges to slap injunctions here, there and everywhere against the National Union of Seamen.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. P and 0, which is held responsible for the Zeebrugge disaster, with the loss of nearly 190 lives, is now in dispute with the seamen, insisting on changes in working conditions which, I understood, include lengthening work shifts by 50 per cent. from 12 to 18 hours, allowing a maximum of five hours which must be taken in two shifts — not as a continuous period — for sleep before the seaman must start another shift. In other words, P and 0 is using Tory anti-union laws to enforce changes in working practice which put at risk the health and safety of seamen. It is precisely in that area that workers need the support of a commissioner against such aggressive and perhaps hazardous demands of employers. Anyone who is relatively unbiased cannot but conclude that the Government's concern for the rights of trade union members is just a little selective.
In our first sitting in Committee we moved an amendment to clause 1 to make it unlawful for employers to interfere with ballots on industrial disputes. The Government refused to accept it, showing, as they did so often in Committee, where their true interests lie. If such


an amendment succeeds in another place— I certainly hope that it will—surely the commissioner should help to enforce that right.
Clause 6 gives union members full access to all union accounting records. Why should we not have a right of access for all union members to the accounting records of their employer? Surely the commissioner should help to enforce that right. If the Government are really concerned about the rights of trade union members they should realise that union members would be much more interested in that information.
Clause 15 concerns the improper conduct of union ballots on political funds. We believe that the commissioner should play a role in ensuring that companies ballot their shareholders before forking out vast sums to the Tory party or some shady group of industrial spies such as the Economic League. There are many other examples that I could give.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of response in Committee from Conservative Members was because, in the main, those Conservative Members who are involved with a company do their utmost to ensure that either there is no trade union in that company or, if there is one, to try to minimise its activities? Time and time again one comes across Conservative Members with vast interests in the City and elsewhere and it is clear that there is no trade union organisation in the places where they have a substantial commercial interest.

Mr. Meacher: It is difficult to make an assessment of the attitude of the Conservative Members on the Committee because they sat there like a lot of sitting ducks and never said anything. They virtually never contributed to the debate except to stick up their hands when the Whip snapped his finger.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right in his general presumption that the attitude of the Government is that they would, first of all, prefer to reduce the number and effectiveness of trade unions—this is the fourth Bill in eight years to try to do so. If they have to put up with trade unions they are seeking to institute a new commissioner. They have the gall to describe the commissioner as
the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members
but that commissioner is a commissar whose purpose is to reduce the power and effectiveness of the trade union as an effective organisation for working people. No doubt the commissar will aid and abet organisations such as the Freedom Association to take out actions against union members and to do as much damage as possible.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if such a commissar for trade unions is introduced, his first case should be British Coal? British Coal is denying members of the National Union of Mineworkers in Nottinghamshire the right to vote on pit premises like anybody else in the coal industry. Elsewhere British Coal has provided the facilities for that voting, but NUM members in Nottinghamshire were denied those facilities. Why should British Coal interfere with trade union ballots?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend eloquently makes the precise point that I made a few moments ago.
One of the objectives of the amendment that we moved in Committee was precisely that employers should not

have the right to interfere in industrial dispute ballots or any other union ballot. In recent weeks, British Coal, to name one employer, has certainly interfered in respect of miners in Nottinghamshire. British Coal has denied them the right to vote at the workplace and that is just the kind of interference that should be a matter for the commissioner. If the commissioner acted against such interference that would improve the rights of trade union members but, of course, the Government intend no such thing. The Government are concerned not about the rights of trade union members, but about the rights of employers.
4.45 pm
We also believe that the commissioner could play a useful role in the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals. Obviously, we favour the industrial tribunals in principle, but access to them and the speed and exercise of obtaining rights from them is often not what it should he. The tribunals concern equal pay, health and safety at work, sex discrimination, employment protection, race relations, transfer of undertakings as a result of a take-over or merger, and industrial training. They relate to key areas of importance. It is interesting to note that clause 3 is the only clause that gives union members new rights against their union, and the commissioner cannot be involved. It relates to the notorious and iniquitous provision that minorities shall have the right of protection to opt out of majority decisions.

Mr. Skinner: The "Owen" clause.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend was not on the Committee, but he obviously heard about our description of the clause. With due respect to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the clause was known as the "David Owen view of industrial relations—if you cannot win the ballot or the game, walk off with the ball." That is also the way in which the Government believe disputes should be undertaken. The important thing to note is that clause 3 is the only clause wherein such rights are enforced through tribunals rather than through the courts. In Committee we argued that that rather curious omission had been made for a rather subtle political reason.

Mr. Skinner: Since my hon. Friend mentioned the alliance in a manner of speaking, I wonder whether he can tell me if the commissioner would have any powers to deal with mergers, break-ups and so on, taking into account that the alliance has not got any representatives here again today? I know that it is called the party that dare not speak its name, but it should be present to take part in the debate.

Mr. Meacher: It is true that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), a member of the so-called alliance— I am not sure what those members now refer to themselves as; they are anything but an alliance—came to part of the first sitting of the Committee—I believe that there were around 25 in all—but, as far as I can recall, never appeared again. Certainly it would be difficult to miss the 22 stone of the hon. Gentleman if he were here. His absence and that of other Members, for whatever reason, illustrates the total lack of interest or concern on the part of the Liberals or that other party with regard to the central issues of employment and industrial relations.
It is clear that clause 3 is the only clause wherein the rights of trade unionists are enforced through tribunals


rather than the courts. In Committee we argued that that decision had been made for a certain political reason. Once the Government conceded that the commissioner might have a role to play in the tribunal system as a result of clause 3 it would be impossible for them to resist the conclusion that he might have a role in the jurisdiction of other tribunals. That would involve rights against the employer. That is the key to the argument. However, Ministers hotly denied that, particularly the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and they argued that the commissioner was concerned with cases of public rights. They claimed that tribunals were all about private grievances.
The Government also argued that the legal aid system, by which applicants get such a bad deal in comparison to those to be helped by the commissioner, dealt only with private rights. That argument, which was retailed at some length in Committee, is wholly bogus. The Committee rapidly exposed it. Legal aid is available in many cases of judicial review that involves public rights of the first importnce. All the alleged rights that the commissioner will assist in enforcing will contain elements of private grievance. For example, under clause 1, the applicant may be a trade union member claiming that he has been denied his personal right to ballot. However, perhaps that rather technical legal argument is best left to another place.
Much more important are the moral objections to the Government's position. Do they believe that cases brought by employees against employers raise no moral issues? What about dismissal for trade union membership? What about sex and race discrimination? What about cases where the employer unfairly dismisses workers on the transfer of an undertaking after takeover or merger?
Even if the Government will not allow the commissioner a role in the industrial tribunal system, he could play a role in enforcing rights against employers in the courts. If the Bill was fair—by that, I mean evenhanded between unions and employers—that is exactly what he would do. That is what the new clause proposes.
None of us who sat through the dozens of hours in Committee will be in any doubt about the outcome. The Government will have none of this. They have no intention of giving the commissioner any power over employers. They are not truly interested in the rights of trade union members; rather they are interested in the rights of employers, or in tilting the balance in favour of employers and against trade unions. In that battle, it suits Ministers' purposes to use surrogates. It would not pay them to go into the political front line and admit what they are up to. They would rather sit back in their Tothill street staff headquarters and give the hospitality cabinet a bashing while their infantry — the dissident union members whom the Bill is designed to encourage— go over the top.
But as the Bill ground its weary way through Committee, the Government's true purpose became more evident. Trade union members and the wider public will greet the new commissioner with contempt. His title, "Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members", will pass into the limbo that awaits failed political euphemisms, hotly following the phrase "community charge". "Commissar for Keeping Trade Unions in their Place" would be more apt. Considering the current industrial scene, it does not seem likely that he will succeed in doing that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I was unable to convince the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about many of these matters on previous occasions and, although hope springs eternal, I am not sure whether I can convince him now. But I will do my best.
The hon. Gentleman used a wide range of examples, but he asked one question which he will concede goes to the heart of the debate: if the Government are prepared to extend powers to the commissioner to help in cases against trade unions, why not extend powers to trade unionists to use against their employers? The question is perfectly fair. The answer amounts to this: as in so many of the areas which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, workers or trade unions already have recourse against their employers, and the main way is through the industrial tribunal. This is neither the time nor the place to set out the history of industrial tribunals, but it is generally recognised that they provide a cheap, efficient and expeditious way for trade union members to air a wide range of grievances against their employers. As for the matters that the hon. Gentleman has in mind in the new clause, often trade union members who are thinking of going to an industrial tribunal might have the assistance of their trade union in doing so.
This is the key to the entire debate. We wish to set up a commissioner for the rights of trade union members because there is a gap in the present system. A person who wished to exercise the rights given to him under clause 19(7) would not have available to him the remedies that are available to a trade union member who wished to go before an industrial tribunal.

Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Minister concede that there is a great range of powers in the courts and that the Certification Officer also exists? The Minister's comments are almost an insult to the Certification Office, implying that it could not take on the added responsibilities to which he referred. There is provision, or the law could be so amended, for the office to take on the role that the Minister mentioned, so there must be other reasons for the introduction of this trade union commissar.

Mr. Nicholls: That point has been made by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, and I shall certainly answer it later in my speech. If I do not, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will ask me to give way again later.
The rights with which the trade union commissioner will be helping people start in the High Court, not in the industrial tribunal. I do not wish to shoot down one of the hon. Gentleman's favourite and sincerely held points so glibly, but clause 3 rights are private rights which belong properly within the province of an industrial tribunal. The powers of the trade union commissioner, as set out in subsection (7), are exclusively matters which start from the High Court. Therefore, it is appropriate that the commissioner should give some assistance in respect of them.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that we should not draw a distinction between public and private rights. He said that that might not be a matter for us to clarify today, but that it might be a matter for another place. I like to agree with the hon. Gentleman when I can. I am sure that he is right to say that such considerations


will exercise the members of another place in detail, but there is no doubt that the legal aid system is designed to take care of the enforcement of private rights. It is not there to take care of the enforcement of public rights. In a previous incarnation, I, with other members of my profession, exercised considerable ingenuity to pretend that what were essentially private rights had a public dimension to them so that one could bring them within the ambit of judicial review. The legal authorities where judicial review seems to be biting on private rights are usually a tribute to the lawyers conducting the case who tried to construct the matter in that way.
I return to my central point: the commissioner is all about the enforcement of public rights, so analogies with industrial tribunals cannot be appropriate.

Mr. Meacher: The Under-Secretary has not answered my central point that legal aid is available in many cases of judicial review which involve public ri.21its of the first order. Many of the rights which the commissioner will help to enforce will have elements of private grievance. How can he continue to make the distinction and try to prevent the commissioner from taking on the role in respect of the employer?

Mr. Nicholls: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I concede that, at first sight, the authorities on judicial review show that it is available only for private matters. But that usually represents a distortion— sometimes a successful distortion—of the law by the lawyers who are trying to assist that person.
There will he grey areas where matters are finely balanced and where one can argue that one is dealing with a public or a private right. In practice, if it is more private than public, one can tack enough private elements on it to bring oneself under the scope of the law. That is the middle ground. But if one considers the rights that the commissioner might be called upon to enforce, for instance under clauses 1, 6, 9 or 15—hon. Gentlemen may disagree with my opinion—it is highly unlikely that anyone interested in enforcing those sorts of rights would be able to find a sufficiently private element in them to be able to use the legal aid system. So if there is not something like the commissioner, there will be rights without those affected by them being able to have them enforced. That is why we believe it is necessary to have a commissioner.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has always been four square against the Bill in general and its provisions in particular—and against the role of the commissioner. However, even if he is not prepared to accept all the Bill's implications, I hope that he will accept that there is a grey area here. When dealing with rights that are wholly public, the legal aid system cannot possibly be an appropriate vehicle.
5 pm
The hon. Member for Oldham, West, gave other examples and talked about some sort of unilateral alteration of the terms and conditions of employment of people employed by P and O. It would he quite inappropriate for me to judge those sorts of matters here and now. One aspect, however, shows why the hon. Gentleman cannot rely on his analogies. If someone's terms and conditions of contract are being unilaterally altered—if he is essentially saying that his contract has been broken—he has his remedies. No doubt he will have assistance from the trade union of which he is a

member, and he may well be able to bring himself within the scope of legal aid. So in such cases remedies already exist. We say that a commissioner is necessary because, without him, there will be no appropriate mechanism for enforcing these rights.
I come to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about industrial tribunals and the reason why clause 3 rights will not do. Clause 3 deals with what is essentially a private right, which should not properly fall within the commissioner's scope. It is all too easy to miss the following essential points. The hon. Gentleman and his Friends are convinced that there is something sinister about the trade union commissioner and the role he will play. Two points about that must be made time arid again. First, the commissioner cannot act on his own volition but only if asked to do so by a trade union member. I do not know whether we should call him a black or white knight—he cannot canter around looking for agro. He must be brought in by a trade union member.
Secondly, except in the single case of the finding of a certification officer, the commissioner has complete discretion about whether to lend his assistance. So the hon. Gentleman's concern about the commissioner going out and looking for trouble, and his—possibly justified— concerns about the tiny minority of vexatious, frivolous people who may try to make trouble for a trade union, can be put aside. The commissioner cannot act unless brought in by a trade union member and that member cannot demand the commissioner's help. The commissioner has the discretion to extend or not to extend his help.

Mr. Allen: I want to bring the Minister back to the central point of why we need a commissioner, because he has not answered that satisfactorily. The Certification Officer has all the qualities that the Minister has mentioned, with the added advantage of a long tradition of being perceived as relatively neutral. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that the Certification Officer would be the ideal person to whom to extend the powers? That would certainly be preferable to the imposition of a commissioner, which comes with all the rest of the dogma in the Bill. He will not be trusted by the majority of trade unionists, and will be used only by those seeking to cause trouble for trade unions.

Mr. Nicholls: I concede at once what the hon. Gentleman said is arguable. I appreciate the way in which he put his point. Without being unduly pessimistic, it is safe to say that it was always a reasonable bet that the Labour movement would not be too keen on the commissioner and all his works. One did not have to be a clairvoyant to spot that. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) graciously and fairly paid tribute in Committee to the work done by the Certification Officer and his staff. There is obviously a good working relationship between them and the trade union movement.
Given the misgivings that some people in the Labour movement would have about the role of the commissioner, would it be a good idea to tack these powers on to the Certification Officer? In one sense it would have been logical and tidy, but it would have driven a wedge—I use the word in a non-pejorative sense— between the trade union movement and the Certification Officer, which would have done no good. So the hon. Gentleman's point is arguable, as is my response to it.

Ms. Clare Short: The Minister should know that we do not believe the Government's protest that the commissioner is merely to assist trade union members, and I shall explain why not. The Government have run down the wages inspectorate, which is supposed to enforce legal standards in low-paid sectors. They do not care whether the law is enforced in that area. The Health and Safety Executive has too few officials, so there are more and more accidents and deaths in British industry. The Government do not care about that or about the law being broken. Suddenly, however, they can find resources for a new official who can back dissident trade union members who want to cause difficulties for their trade unions in this way, rather than taking up the issues in a democratic way through the movement.

Mr. Nicholls: I am not sure how far you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to get away with broadening the debate into one about wages councils or the Health and Safety Executive. In passing, on the subject of the number of fatalities, I ask the hon. Lady to have another look at the figures for industrial fatalities, which are now at an all-time record low.

Ms. Short: No.

Mr. Nicholls: The figures speak for themselves. I wonder how far I shall be allowed to go down this road— the hon. Lady can go off and check the rate of industrial fatalities—

Mr. Meacher: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: I can understand the misgivings of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, but I made the point that the commissioner does not act on his own volition and has the discretion about whether to render assistance, and I hoped that that would go a long way to satisfying the hon. Lady's concerns.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend made an important point about the need for protection because of the Government's poor record on health and safety at work—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps we have gone far enough down that road. New clause 3 deals with proceedings in industrial tribunals, and we should get back to that.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister said incorrectly that the number of industrial deaths had fallen; it has not. It has been roughly stationary for the past four or five years, and the number of severe accidents and maimings has been rapidly increasing. That would be affected by a commissioner who could take up the lack of the provision of health and safety measures by an employer on behalf of his employees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point has nothing to do with clause 3. I hope that both Front Benches will agree to differ and return now to new clause 3.

Mr. Nicholls: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know what is good for me.
The issue comes down to whether one believes that if these rights exist they should have a proper mechanism for enforcement. We believe that they should, and we have to be able to satisfy the world at large—if not the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his hon. Friends—that

there is nothing sinister about the role of the commissioner. Given his discretion and the fact that he cannot act of his own volition, I believe that we have got the balance right, and I hope the House will reject the new clause.

Mr. David Clelland: I should like to preface my remarks by saying that the Government have not produced a shred of evidence that there is a need for the commissioner for the rights of trade union members, whereas there is ample evidence of the need for the protection of the rights of employees. It is obvious to the most casual of observers that the creation of the commissioner is to facilitate deliberately proved actions sometimes by politically motivated organisations such as the Right-wing Freedom Association, and sometimes by employers, against trade unions and their officers.
An example of what I mean can be found in Sir Ian MacGregor's book, "The Enemies Within", when he refers to the Gulliver concept, wherein his hired agent David Hart was used to organise so-called dissident members of the National Union of Mineworkers to institute waves of legal proceedings against the union because
each one of the many actions tied another tiny legal rope around the NUM until it woke up one day and couldn't move.
The encouragement of such tactics is what the creation of the commissioner is all about. If it is not, we look forward to the Minister telling the House that he can accept new clause 3. The Bill deals with the so-called rights of union members only in so far as they relate to the union. The same members will not be able to avail themselves of the services of the commissioner in relation to any matters connected with their employment or their employer.

Mr. Allen: Is it not a fact that David Hart performed those duties in a privatised manner, and all that the Government are doing are nationalising the services of Mr. Hart? He may be the first commissioner.

Mr. Clelland: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
The legal aid that the commissioner will willingly provide for action against the union will not be available to assist in any action against the employer. The resources of the taxpayer, to the tune of some 1·5 million per year, are to be made available to those who wish to take issue with their union, while at the same time the same Government are planning to save about £10 million per year on the legal aid system, which is there to help those who cannot afford the legal costs involved in obtaining justice on a host of infinitely more important, more legitimate and more personal issues.
The Government's Legal Aid Bill, currently going through its parliamentary processes, is in sharp contrast to the measures proposed in the Employment Bill, and clearly shows the prejudiced nature of the Employment Bill and the Government's determination to pursue their political enemies at the taxpayers' expense, while cutting back on public expenditure for more creditable and essential services, and services in more demand. It is also in sharp contrast to the rights of employees that the Government have whittled away during the past eight years.
If the Government are really interested in fairness and justice, let Ministers explain why employees' rights have been eroded to such an extent. Let them explain why there is no proposal to give the "commissar for trade union


harassment" the power to help members unfairly disciplined by their employers. Do not let Ministers tell us that the unions should give legal assistance to such members. We know that they do. That is one of the major benefits of trade union membership. We also know that the Government— by this measure and in every Act concerned with trade unions—have deliberately set out to weaken the ability of trade unions so to do.
What about those who are not trade union members, those whom the Government have done everything in their power to discourage and dissuade from trade union membership? What about their rights? Who is to assist them if they are unfairly disciplined by their employers? Why should not the commissioner be able to help those people, too, to take action against unfair employers? The reason is that the Bill is not about fairness or justice; it is about encouraging litigation against unions. It is about giving state support to the Gulliver concept, so that unions will be further weakened and unable to give proper representation and protection to their members. The fact that the commissioner for the rights of trade union members will not be empowered to assist those union members against their employers is ample proof of that. However, if further proof is necessary, it lies in the extent to which the proposal goes to see to it that nothing stands in the way of encouraging action against trade unions.
5.15 pm
I return to the legal aid system, to compare its provisions with the proposals in the Bill to demonstrate the Governments double standards and hypocrisy. Clause 19(4) states:
The matters to which the Commissioner may have regard in determining whether, and to what extent, to grant an application under this section shall include, in particular—
(a) whether the case raises a question of principle;
I should have thought that there was plenty of room for manoeuvre there. Subsection (4)(b) states:
whether it is unreasonable, having regard to the complexity of the case, to expect the applicant to deal with the case unaided;
Again, that is completely at the discretion of the commissioner. Paragraph (c) states:
whether, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the case involves a matter of substantial public interest.
That is interesting because I can imagine that if a trade union member wanted to take action against the shop steward that would not be particularly interesting to the public, but if he wanted to take action against Arthur Scargill that would be very interesting to the public and the commissioner might think that it was in the public interest.
I should like to refer to part IV of the legal aid regulations, headed, "Determination of Applications". The regulations make aid conditional and refer to financial eligibility and eligibility on merit. They also refer to
Refusal where advantage trivial or proceedings simple".
The regulations refer to refusal where other facilities are available.
The regulations on financial eligibility state:


"(1) Where the assessment officer determines that an applicant has disposable income of an amount which makes him ineligible for legal aid, the [secretary](a) shall refuse the application.
(2) Where the assessment officer determines that an applicant, having disposable income of an amount which makes him eligible for legal aid, has disposable capital of an amount which renders him liable to be refused legal aid, the [secretary] … shall refuse the application if it appears to [him] … that the probable costs of the applicant in the

proceedings in respect of which the application was made would not exceed the maximum contribution payable by the applicant under the Act."

Then the applicant has to satisfy eligibility on merits:
Without prejudice to the generality of section 7(5) or (5A) of the Act (which provides that a person shall not be given legal aid unless he has reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to proceedings, and may also be refused legal aid if it appears unreasonable that he should receive it in the particular circumstances of the case), an application for a certificate, shall not be approved except after consideration by the [secretary] … of all questions of fact or law arising out of the action, cause or matter to which the application relates and the circumstances in which it was made.
The regulation headed:
Refusal where advantage trivial or proceedings simple
states:
Without prejudice to regulations 29 and 33 an application may be refused where it appears … that only a trivial advantage would he gained by the applicant from the proceedings to which the application relates, or that on account of the simple nature of the proceedings a solicitor would not ordinarily be employed.
Then we come to the regulation headed:
Refusal where other rights or facilities available.
It states:


" — (1) Without prejudice to regulations 29 an application may be refused where it appears … that the applicant has available rights or facilities making it unnecessary for him to obtain legal aid or has a reasonable expectation of obtaining financial or other help from a body of which he is a member, and has failed to take all reasonable steps to enforce or obtain such rights, facilities or help including permitting the [secretary] … to take those steps on his behalf.
(2) Where it appears that the applicant has a right to be indemnified against expenses incurred in connection with any proceedings, it shall not, for the purposes of paragraph (1), be deemed a failure to take reasonable steps if he has not taken proceedings to enforce that right, whether for a declaration as to that right or otherwise."

Therefore, financial aid through the legal aid system is complicated. Legal aid is also means tested to the extent that valuation is made of the capital available to the client as well as of the annual income that is available to him. Nor is it open-ended assistance, unlike that provided by the commissioner for the rights of trade union members. Where a solicitor feels that more advice or assistace would go over the limit already granted, he must not give it without going back to the board. Recipients of legal aid, unlike recipients of aid from the commissioner, must pay a contribution. It is calculated first on the basis of capital. That is not only cash savings but sums that could be borrowed against insurance policies, jewellery, caravans, and so on, but excluding household furniture and the value of an owner-occupied house. The assessment is made by the DHSS. If disposable capital is over £4,850, legal aid will probably be reduced.
The DHSS also looks at disposable yearly income. It is assessed as weekly household income, net of tax and national insurance, and must include child benefit and family income supplement if applicable. Then reasonable expenses must be deducted—travelling to work, trade union dues and weekly rent or mortgages—and there is a deduction for dependants. For those aged 11 it is £13, for those aged 11–15 it is £19·50, for those aged 16–17 it is £23·40 and for those over 18 it is £30·45. That gives the weekly disposable income, and it is multiplied by 52 to give the yearly income. Over £5,585 is not eligible for legal aid and under £2,325 is eligible. If income is between those two


figures, £2,325 is deducted from yearly disposable income and the remainder is divided by four to give the maximum contribution out of income.
It will be easy to be in a position whereby an applicant on family income supplement will have to make a contribution. Only those in receipt of supplementary benefit will not have to make a contribution. No such tests will apply to those seeking help from the commissioner.
Another interesting comparison between the legal aid system and the operation of the commissioner is malicious representation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The speech that the hon. Gentleman is making might be more appropriate if the Question before the House were that the clause stand part of the Bill. That is not the Question, nor is it likely to be. The hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks to the new clause, which seeks to extend the provisions of clause 19 to proceedings before an industrial tribunal.

Mr. Clelland: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to draw a comparison between the legal aid system and the operation of the commissioner. To some extent, there must be a parallel—the inherent unfairness of what will be provided under the commission compared with the more serious cases under the legal aid system. I am trying to show the need to make the operation of the commissioner fairer by the inclusion of the new clause.
There are qualifications with regard to certain cases that can be funded under the legal aid system. Aid to pursue cases relating to unfair action by employers through industrial tribunals is such an example. That is the point of new clause 3.
In contrast, clause 19(7)(e) says:
such other proceedings, being proceedings against a trade union, an official of a trade union or the trustees of the property of a trade union, as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
With regard to the operation of the commissioner, the only qualification is that the Secretary of State will be unable to order assistance in cases against employers. No doubt that is protection against some sudden brainstorm. The commissioner will be almost unfettered in taking any action or pursuing any mischief at the taxpayers' expense, so long as it is in pursuance of a trade union or a trade union official, but not against an employer.
In Committee we argued strongly that there was no case for the introduction of such a service. Even if the Government came up with the slightest evidence that there was, there is no case for it taking priority over the many injustices in society on which the Government turn their back.
If, as it would appear, the Government are determined to press ahead with this dogmatic nonsense, the least that they could do would be to give some balance to the service and give equal rights to trade union members pursuing cases of injustice at the hands of their employers.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he will accept new clause 3.

Mr. Michael Foot: Most hon. Members who listened to the Second Reading debate realised what a disgraceful Bill it was and how it had been

devised to hit the trade union movement when the Government thought that it was down. That was its sole purpose.
I recall a precedent for a Government behaving in such a manner. Just after the general strike the Government thought, "We have got them down and we will kick them as hard as we possibly can. We will deprive them of rights that they have held since 1906, or rights that they have held since Disraeli's first trade union legislation. We shall take away those rights, and now that they are down we shall kick and fetter them even more."
No doubt my hon. Friends strove as hard as possible in Committee to overcome and to expose the difficulties, but the Bill has returned in almost as bad a shape as it was when it went into Committee. The Minister tried to adopt a perfectly reasonable manner when he put his case, but he did not deal with the realities. We are faced—the country should know this—with a bad Bill. It is a vindictive Bill and it will produce bitter reaction throughout the trade union movement. Far from assisting in overcoming industrial disputes or difficulties, it will add greatly to the dangers of industrial disputes over the next four or five years.
The proposition with regard to a commissioner will add to those difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred to David Hart. His appointment is not a fanciful proposition. Whom will the Government appoint to do the job? Do they think that any reputable trade unionist, or any reputable civil servant, will take the job of commissioner, particularly if they reject the proposition in the new clause, which is making a belated attempt to restore some semblance of balance to the operation that the commissioner will have to undertake? Apparently, even that will be rejected out of hand.
The commissioner will be established for the purpose of causing trouble for individual trade unions. As soon as the commission is in operation there will be trouble. The Government need not think that the trade union movement will be as fettered as it has been in the past. More serious fetters have been placed on the trade union movement. Over the past five or six years the greatest fetter placed on it has been that of unemployment. It weakens trade unions and prevents them overcoming their difficulties.
What has always happened in British industrial history when a malicious and vindictive Government, such as this one, have sought to impose legal fetters on trade unions and bind their hands to prevent them from protecting their members is that eventually the trade unions have worked their way out of it and managed, once again, to stand up for their rights.
Whoever is appointed as commissioner by the Government will be an industrial buffoon. He will be laughed at from one end of the country to the other. The idea that he will be able to assist in dealing with industrial disputes is nonsense.

Mr. Allen: My right hon. Friend should be informed that in Committee the bets were even between Sir Ian MacGregor, Lord Frank Chapple and John Moore, who came in as a late runner as a possible appointee to the job.

Mr. Foot: I think that David Hart is the man. He is the most likely appointee. I agree that it will be a strong competition. Perhaps the Government will introduce a


clause in the House of Lords for the appointment of two or three commissioners—they want the matter covered properly.
It is especially disgraceful — my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North underlined this fact—that money should be available for such a post when less money is being provided for the essential services that are trying to operate health and safety procedures throughout British industry. It is being done at a time when the number of inspectors is nothing like it should be or what it was when we started the operation. The need for health and safety inspectors is constantly increasing because of the growing mechanisation of British factories and because of the greatly extended health and safety provisions. I do not need to say this in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because nobody played a greater part in passing those procedures, when we had a decent House of Commons, than you did in a previous office.
We always envisaged that if that task were to be done properly there would have to be a proper provision of assistance and that there would have to be a number of inspectors. There would have to be proper support over an increasing period, because the demand would be increased. Instead, the Government, who have been such skinflints in these matters, are prepared to provide funds for someone to do this squalid little job for them. It is utterly disgraceful and it will never succeed. They have contrived a strike at Ford's which derives essentially from the rigid ballot provisions imposed by the Government. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) should get the bill for the £17 million per day that it costs, unless it can be shared properly and fairly among the sycophants who supported him in taking that measure through the House.
5.30 pm
The Minister has sought to appear reasonable today. He may also have done so in Committee. In a few years' time, however, every Member who has been associated with the Bill will be utterly ashamed of it. There will have been the first industrial dispute associated with the commissioner's operations. The commissioner may think that he is protecting someone's rights, but his activities will rightly be seen as a deliberate attack by the Government on the trade union movement. The best thing that the Minister could do would be to knock this miserable bit out of the Bill or to accept the new clause. As that would make a mockery of the Government's intentions, I do not suppose they will agree to it. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider what will happen to them when the trade union movement recovers its strength and self-reliance and turns to rend those who attacked it in its moment of weakness. When the movement has regained its strength it will deal with those who have introduced squalid, miserable measures such as this.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I am pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). He has a distinguished record in these matters and speaks with passion of the iniquities and inadequacies of the Bill.
With regard to the role of the commissioner, I wish briefly to take up some of the points that were raised in Committee but received no response from the Government. This measure is profoundly prejudiced and fundamentally flawed. The provision for the commissioner is merely a further attempt to hogtie the trade union movement under the bogus guise of extending individual

freedom. It is just one more step down the road towards the strangulation of our trade union movement. The Under-Secretary of State laughs, but that is nothing new—he did the same in Committee.
New clause 3 seeks to bring some balance to an absurd measure. It is nonsense to suggest that trade union members should have such enormous powers to tackle the trade unions but very little assistance in tackling difficulties caused by employers. The Government's proposal is over the top and has nothing to do with industrial relations. It is political prejudice masquerading as practical policy. We mounted a lengthy attack on these provisions in Committee. Today I shall highlight various key issues to which the Minister has failed to respond, either in Committee or today.
The Green Paper contained a long section on the benefits of the work of the Certification Officer, but no case was made for a commissioner to handle trade union members' difficulties and especially the interface with the court system. Paragraph 6.9 of the Green Paper gives the game away. It states:
However, it has also become apparent that the present arrangements are deficient or inadequate to some extent. The Certification Officer's powers are not comprehensive and the courts are not being used.
The sole criterion for the Government's proposal is that there is too little court involvement in trade union affairs and the work of the Certification Officer. That shows why the proposal is being introduced and it belies the arguments of fairmindedness, evenhandedness and the extension of individual rights that are constantly pushed down our throats by a Government who daily abuse all those concepts.
My second point relates to costs. It was argued in Committee that if the commissioner's role was so vital, the £1·2 million or £.1·3 million cost of setting up that office would be justified. Yet when we asked exactly what the commissioner's role was, on no occasion was an answer given. Ministers merely parroted the claim that there was a deficiency and the courts were not being used, so there must be a commissioner to satisfy the Government's prejudices. It is extraordinary that we are expected to accept a proposal involving public expenditure for which no justification has been given.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said, the Bill is the fourth instalment of the Government's attempt to dismember the trade union movement. Although we disagree with the malice and vindictiveness behind it, we might have expected the Government to produce some reasoned justification for this intrusion into trade union affairs and industrial relations. Sadly, the Government have so little pride in their political craft that they have failed to produce any justification for this unsavoury contribution to the sea of flawed argument represented by the Bill.

Mr. Allen: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). It is also a privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), whose work in this area is well documented and widely respected. As a new Member, I find many unfamiliar things in the Chamber and some that are familiar. One unfamiliar sight is the faces of Back Bench Conservative Members who were on the Standing Committee. For three months, I saw only the piles of correspondence with which they were dealing during the Committee stage rather than the fresh, charming faces


before us today. It is a delight to see them. It is also a delight to see the Secretary of State, albeit somewhat late—we were used to that in Committee, so, again, it is something familiar to make one feel at home.

Mr. Don Dixon: Perhaps the Secretary of State has been on the picket line at Ford's.

Mr. Allen: That may be so. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) may also have been there, as he used to work at Ford's. I picked up that morsel of information on the one occasion when the hon. Gentleman spoke in Committee. Whether the number of industrial disputes at Ford has gone down since the hon. Member came to the House, or whether all these disputes are the result of his absence from Ford, we cannot really say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see the relevance of what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the new clause that we are debating. Perhaps he will look at the new clause and direct his remarks to it.

Mr. Allen: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the familiar points in this debate. The unfamiliar point about the debate is that there is an SDP-Liberal alliance Member here today. There may even be two. I am trying to be charitable, but on the occasion when the alliance was represented in Committee it may have looked as though there were two of its members present when there was only one. Unfortunately, that was just for two or three hours of one Committee sitting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I doubt whether the Committee debated new clause 3, and perhaps we ought to be debating it now.

Mr. Allen: There is little logic in this clause. The powers given to the new trade union harassment officer are powers that could have been made available to the Certification Officer. As I have said, this is a slight upon those who work in the Certification Office, and I have had some dealings with them over a number of years with some tricky and delicate industrial relations matters. The Certification Officer has always proved to be an extremely reliable person in dealing with such queries. Such an office will always be accused of being biased in one way or another, but, in general, the Certification Officer has always proved that that is a worthy office. In my view, and that of many other Members, that office would have been the appropriate place to which to extend these powers. The fact that the Government have chosen to separate the Certification Officer from the new trade union harassment officer demonstrates the dogma that lies behind this clause. They could not bring these powers to bear with the Certification Officer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for six minutes. The new clause before the House refers to extending the provisions of clause 19 to
proceedings in an industrial tribunal".
I have yet to hear him comment on that matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to that.

Mr. Allen: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This refers to the assistance by the commissioner. The thrust of my argument is that the commissioner need not be the person who gives this assistance. That power could go to the Certification Officer, were it not for the dogma of the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is not contained in the new clause that the House is debating. The new clause contains nothing about transferring to the Certification Officer the responsibilities that are proposed for the commissioner. The hon. Gentleman would do well if he would quickly glance at new clause 3 and address his remarks to it.

Mr. Allen: The new clause relates to assistance by the commissioner in actions against employers, and those matters were previously dealt with by the Certification Officer. I feel that it would be in order to ask, when talking about this new trade union harassment officer and the commissar who will take on this role, whether we shall be at liberty to hear how this person will be appointed to carry out the duties in the clause. What will the wages of this person be, and what qualifications will he have?

Mr. Dixon: How will he be appointed?

Mr. Allen: As my hon. Friend says, how will he be appointed?
In Committee, we were endlessly told that any person who exercises any responsibility in the trade union movement, even down to giving minor advice at an executive committee meeting, should be elected. There is no provision for that democratic process to be applied to this person. Therefore, it may strike people as being a little humorous that David Hart, or Ian MacGregor, or even John Moore if he falls out of favour, or any number of people, will be put up for this job. The job is completely within the gift of the Secretary of State. He may choose to give away one of these "jobs for the boys" to people such as Ian MacGregor or someone whom he feels deserves a little sinecure.
5.45 pm
We also need to be careful about unfair dismissals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said earlier that there is little that the trade union commissioner or commisar or harassment officer can do on behalf of a member to secure redress for unfair dismissal. The unfair dismissal that is relevant to this clause is the potential unfair dismissal of, God help him, the trade union commisar. Schedule 1 (2)(3) says:
If, when any person ceases to hold office as the Commissioner, the Secretary of State determines that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, there may be paid to him a sum by way of compensation of such amount as may be determined.
That can be read in two ways. Either the person, being an acolyte of the Secretary of State, could be thrown out on his ear, or he could be the beneficiary of a tremendous golden handshake. However, the clause says nothing about his taking on these other, more important and relevant duties.
Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the number of cases laid before the Certification Officer. There is not enough for a trade union harassment officer to do unless he goes out on his white charger to try to find work. Nothing in the clause says anything about that. The Certification Officer has had just a handful of cases on such matters as political funds. Those cases could be dealt with by the Certification Officer, and cases arising out of the clause may also be dealt with in that way. Therefore, a new office is undesirable.
We have heard a lot about performance-related pay from the Government, and I have asked the Minister—


and I ask him again — whether, if the trade union harassment officer deals with just five or six cases a year, that will affect his pay. Will the Minister undertake to review the value for money that the trade union harassment officer is giving the Government after his first year? The legislation gives the Government the power not to reappoint this trade union harassment officer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All this is of great interest to the House, but has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will start to address himself to clause 3, or resume his seat.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Allen: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that advice, supported by Conservative Members. It is nice to hear that they are in good voice because we were a little worried that they had nothing to say. These clauses are put forward out of malice. They are yet another attempt to stir the pot—

Mr. Tony Favell: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the House who put forward this new clause?

Mr. Allen: The new clause relates to the trade union harassment officer. That may not be within the hon. Gentleman's knowledge, but that is what we are talking about. He was not on the Committee, so I understand his lack of knowledge.
This is another attempt to stir the pot and incite individual dissident trade union members to take action against trade unions. As such, it is undemocratic, it is uncalled for and unnecessary. I hope that we shall throw it out.

Mr. Haynes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman intends to address himself to new clause 3.

Mr. Haynes: I resent that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you called me, I was about to say that I intended to address myself to clause 19, which deals with assistance by the trade union commissioner—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is just what I feared. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House is considering new clause 3.

Mr. Haynes: All I said was that clause 19 deals with assistance by the commissioner. I hope that I shall not say anything that may tempt you to tell me to sit down, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall kick off by saying, in passing, that I notice that not many of the Conservative Members who served in the Committee are on the Benches today. One or two of them were here earlier — the little boys, as I called them in Committee — —[Interruption.] It is true. They have not lived yet. They do not know what life is about; they do not know what work is about; and they certainly do not know what trade unions are about. They are no longer here, they have gone —[Interruption.] They have gone; there are only some of the more elderly Conservative Members on the Benches opposite.
The Bill is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I have made a few notes about him. For example, the right hon. Gentleman arrived in the Chamber at 5.37 pm and departed two minutes later. He is not really meeting his responsibility, is he? He has left his junior Ministers to take responsibility for the Bill. My right hon. Friend the

Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) — he is from that beautiful country of Wales, the Principality —mentioned the junior Minister. I can tell my right hon. Friend that the Under-Secretary is a nice chap — [Interruption.] Yes, he really is a nice chap, but politically he is vicious. There is no doubt about that.

Ms. Short: He is not nice.

Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend wants to jump in and talk about the junior Minister.
The two junior Ministers are up front today. Of course, they were up front in Committee because the Secretary of State hardly ever attended. From the Conservative point of view they have not done a bad job, but we have done a better job. We did a better job in Committee, we are doing a better job today and we are pulling the Bill to pieces.
The new clause clearly shows what lies behind the appointment of the commissioner chappie and the sort of assistance that he will give trade unionists. It is a scabs' charter — [Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would listen. Some of the young Tories in Committee were given a bit of an education. I am surprised that the more elderly Tories are turning round and gasbagging when they should be listening.
By talking about the young laddies in Committee, I am reminded of my school days—as I am sure you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker — when little fellows used to sneak around looking at what everybody was doing. It is the same today — little Tory sneaks in trade unions. The Government will give them the opportunity to go to the commissar so that he can really take the trade unions to town. That is what it is all about.
The Government change the rules and regulations again and again. They have not yet said anything about the national vote at Ford not so many days ago. They keep saying that they want everybody to have ballots. Well, there was a ballot at Ford, a decision was made and it was carried out. I am waiting for the Government to say something—

Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came into the Chamber bursting to hear about new clause 3, but so far I have heard about the Ford strike, the youth of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and even your youth, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we please return to the new clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a point. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) must address himself much more closely to the provisions of new clause 3.

Mr. Haynes: That is what I am trying to do. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not need the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) to encourage you. That is just not on. In any case, the hon. Gentleman was not even here at the start of the debate, and he was not a member of the Committee either. He is a new boy to the Bill. He need not tell me when I am out of order; that is the job of the Chair. I respect the Chair at all times.
There has been massive infiltration of the trade union movement by the Conservative Trade Unionists. That has been the cause of the problems. They have attended branch meetings and stirred up trouble. Now, they can run to the commissar to try to bring the unions into disrepute. That is not on, and the Government jolly well know it.


When the Opposition return to office, we will know what to do with this legislation—[Interruption.] Oh yes we will. This Government preach freedom, but they have introduced this Bill to take away freedom from the individual. That is what the Bill is all about.

Mr. Allen: I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to mention that the trade union commissar will not even have to refer any complaints to the trade union involved. Complaints—and they may, of course, be frivolous—will be made to the trade union harassment officer, but there will be absolutely no referral to the trade union in the first instance.

Mr. Haynes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Ashfield will not be persuaded to go too far down that road. I remind both him and the House that the new clause under discussion seeks to extend the provisions of clause 19 to proceedings before an industrial tribunal. I hope that the House and the hon. Gentleman will address themselves to that.

Mr. Haynes: I am going down no road other than the right one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you asked me to do that. You asked that right at the beginning of my speech. Indeed, you have pulled up hon. Members for going down the wrong road. I shall not allow myself to be persuaded to go down the wrong road by either Conservative Members or my hon. Friends. I intend to stick to the rules, of course — [Interruption.] Hon. Members are trying to put me off because I want to tell the House about the CTU and its massive infiltration of the trade union movement. Its members are stirring up trouble throughout the country, and not just in my industry.
Before I came here I worked in a heavy industry, so I know what work is all about. I also know what trade unions are about. They look after their members, negotiate with the employers, and do this, that and the other. The employer is not even mentioned in clause 19. My experience of industry was that workers and management worked together and if something went wrong they sat round the table and sorted it out. They did not run down the road to the commissar saying, "That is it. I am not going back to work until you sort things out." That was the last resort if we did not get anywhere with management. There was co-operation from day one. The problems stirred up by the CTU should never have happened, but they were encouraged by the Government to join trade unions and cause trouble.
The question of cost has been raised. This is interesting. In Committee, a figure of £1·25 million was mentioned as the cost of running the commissioner's office. The Minister does not nod or shake his head in response to say yea or nay. He will probably respond to that point when he rises to the Dispatch Box. If these sneaky trade unionists keep running to and fro between the commissioner and their jobs, it will obviously increase the cost. The more work that the commissioner takes on, the higher will be the cost. As the Government keep reminding us, they were elected to reduce public expenditure. If that expenditure increases, there must be a reason. We want to know how much the Government are prepared to spend on the commissioner and his office.

6 pm

Mr. Allen: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this piece of information. With his usual modesty he has underestimated the financial effects of the measure. The figure for 1988–89 is estimated at £1·5 million, and the figure for each of the following two years is £1,700,000. That relates to the new commissioner for the rights of trade union members to be established and to operate under those clauses. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that.

Mr. Haynes: That is interesting. It shows that, as time goes on, it will cost more and more. Given that membership of trade unions is dropping, many people will run to the commissioner to complain about various matters in respect of their trade unions. The Government are obviously prepared to set up a scabs' charter.

Mr. Clelland: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there is no upper limit in the Bill in respect of the cost of the commissioner to the taxpayer, the Government propose to save £10 million a year on the legal aid system? Surely this again shows the Government's priorities when it comes to justice and fairness.

Mr. Haynes: That is what Conservatism is all about. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent reminded us about what happened in the early 20th century. The message is coming over to the Labour Benches loud and clear. We shall go back to those days of the early 20th century, when the Government shackled the trade unions. This is what it is all about, yet the Government talk about freedom of the individual.
Finally, some names have been suggested for appointment as commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent picked the right one when he suggested David Hart, given the marvellous job that he did for the Government in Nottinghamshire during the miners' dispute. He was running from pit to pit, and from branch to branch, convincing chappies that they should be doing this, that and the other, contrary to what the National Union of Mineworkers had decided. Is it any wonder that we had a dispute?

Mr. Foot: He was at No. 10 Downing street, too.

Mr. Haynes: Yes, that is right. He was under instructions from No. 10. I understand that he used to work there. There is a clear connection.
What experience is required for such a job? Will this commissioner have trade union experience, management experience or financial experience? Will he have anything like CAB experience? We want to know.

Mr. Clelland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only qualifications needed are those of an agent provocateur? That is why Mr. David Hart fits the bill so well.

Mr. Haynes: I take my hon. Friend's point. The Minister must tell the nation that taxpayers' money is being used to appoint this fellow and his staff and to run his office. We want to know how much money will be spent, and how it will be spent. If the Bill is enacted and a commissioner—or, as we like to call him, a commissar—is appointed, he will be a tool of the Government. He will not be a tool of the trade union member. He will be answerable to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State is assuming more powers under the Bill. One of those powers will enable him to control the


commissioner and to tell him exactly what he is to do. I do not care what the Minister says when he rises to the Dispatch Box. I welcome the Secretary of State back at 6.5 pm. I, my colleagues and people outside the House want to know, before his appointment, what kind of experience the commissioner will have. We may want to play a part. We want to find out exactly what kind of qualifications are needed.

Mr. Clay: There is a slight difficulty in respect of this clause. I support it, but, given the function that it should perform, it is narrowly drawn. I wish to draw the attention of my Front Bench colleagues to this point and put one or two suggestions to them.
As I understand it, only an existing trade union member who has been unfairly dismissed by reason of trade union membership or activities can seek the commissar's assistance and go to the tribunal. What about those people who do not get a job in the first place because of their trade union membership? This is a serious new clause to which the Government have not responded in any way.
I recall last Monday night's "World in Action" programme about the Economic League and the extraordinary situation in which a spy can be involved in a trade union for years, go to meetings and collect names, all of which are used to form employers' blacklists. It is not just the Economic League and Aims of Industry which do that. When an unemployed trade union activist goes to an employer seeking work, the employer can get out his blacklist and say, "We're not having you". As a trade unionist, will that person have the right to go to the commissar? If there was a genuine commissioner for the rights of trades unionists, he would serve no more essential purpose than for people to be able to complain to him that they have been blacklisted for trade union activity. The Bill does not cover that situation. Unfortunately, new clause 3 does not appear to cover it either, although I am sure that that is a technical oversight.

Mr. Allen: Surely this is the ideal opportunity for the Government to condemn such activity openly from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend is right. If the Government were serious in their wish to assist trade unions, rather than continually to harass them, they would accept this new clause and table amendments to widen the scope of the measure. The Government must explain why there is no legal provision to prevent this practice. Why do the Government shed crocodile tears from time to time in Committee about those people who do not wish to belong to a trade union, yet are happy to reap the benefits of this provision and to insert legal protection and the opportunity to go to the commissioner if things do not go their way? If the Government feel so much sympathy for people in that position, why do they feel no sympathy for people who are hounded out of work and are prevented from working for years—sometimes for the rest of their lives — simply because they have been known as members of trade unions? If the Government had the slightest sincerity, they would do something about that. The clause represents an excellent opportunity to do so.
It seems also that the clause could be widened to deal with many other matters apart from unfair dismissal. For instance, why not give the so-called commissioner—the commissar — the power to enforce some other trade union rights? It is interesting that, in other parts of the Bill,

there will be provisions to allow trade unions to be harassed, particularly, I suspect, lay representatives of trade unions, by having to produce seven years of accounting records, down to branch level. That will make the life of the average, decent, hard-working lay trade union officer, such as a branch secretary or branch treasurer, quite impossible. As such onerous obligations are being laid upon them, it is interesting that trade union officials can go to the commissioner to say that they want the right to have time off work—thereby enforcing that part of the employment legislation—so that they can cope with all the additional onerous harassments that the rest of the Bill places on them.
Obviously, a full-time trade union officer is provided with some facilities by the trade union that he represents, but many lay trade union representatives, such as shop stewards and conveners, have extremely poor facilities. Their employers are so hostile to the existence of trade unions that they make it as difficult as possible for them to carry out their functions. It is about time we had some legislation that obliged employers to provide proper facilities for trade unions in work places. If we had such legislation, new clause 3 could be widened a bit so that if employers fail to provide satisfactory facilities and sufficient time off, which they are obliged to provide, for them to cope with all the onerous, aggressive and malevolent practices that the Bill imposes on them, trade union members could go to the commissioner and ask for assistance. That would be a serious purpose of the Bill. There is no reason why the Government, if they were in the slightest way serious about trade union rights, should not concede all such purposes.

Mr. Allen: Is that not an even greater reason for a trade union harassment officer, if he is to be the sort of person whom the Government say he should be, to have great experience in the trade union movement, to have a track record and know the ins and outs of the trade union movement, rather than merely act as the acolyte of the Secretary of State in such narrow terms? A broader range of knowledge, which was not evident among Conservative Members in Committee, would give some credibility—not a lot of credibility—to the office.

Mr. Clay: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If the Government were serious about a Bill or a clause to assist the rights of trade union members, the person who had the job of carrying it out would, by definition, have had considerable experience of the way in which trade unions operate, and know their ideals, objectives and practices. Of course we know all that is not so, because we have referred to the proposed person not as the commissioner, as the Government do, but as the harassment commisar or the harassment office. As we have said in Committee and in the House, the clause has nothing to do with the rights of trade union members. It is concerned with the rights of mavericks, and is to be manipulated by Conservative organisations, industry, the Economic League, people such as David Hart, who may get the job—that is the irony of it—and by the Freedom Association to harass trade unions.
Of course, the new clause gives the Government the opportunity to say, "Hold on. You are wrong. We have a little bit of balance, much as we hate and detest trade unions, and wish the Bill to make life as difficult as possible for them. We recognise that some elementary


philosophical balance is required, and we shall at least make some small gesture towards recognising that if we describe a job as that of a commissioner for trade union rights. We shall at least enable the commissioner occasionally to do some small thing to assist trade union rights." In effect, without clause 3, the commissioner will never do anything to assist any genuine trade union rights. All he will do is harass trade unions.
I am slightly unhappy about the wording of the clause in respect of non-trade union members. We should talk also about the rights of non-trade union members, but not in the way in which the Government do. I do not refer to people who enjoy the benefits of collective organisation and are quite happy to work in conditions that have been negotiated by trade unions and receive pay, but do not wish to be a member of the club. I refer to people—very often young people, women, ethnic minorities, and those who work for small and often unscrupulous employers—who have never had the opportunity to join a trade union in the first place. If there is a genuine commissioner for trade union rights, such people should have the opportunity to seek advice from the commissioner and, possibly, representation at an industrial tribunal, in the way in which the clause suggests for others, to pursue a case.
We have had a long debate in Committee and in the House about the comparison between the functions of the commissioner and legal aid. Many valid points have clearly demonstrated the Government's bias. But another point has not been sufficiently stressed. In reality, compared with legal aid applicants, those who complain to the commissioner against a trade union and those who wish to get the commissioner's assistance in harassing a trade union will find it easier to do so than to get legal aid. In respect of legal aid, it is not always entirely clear to people whether they will have to pay something. Not everyone entirely understands that the first brief interview is free. Many people think, "It will take a lot more than that. I shall probably end up paying." It is difficult to work out whether, depending on one's circumstances, one is entitled to legal aid. With the trade union harassment officer, people will know it will not cost them anything. The Government have made sure of that. In a sense, it will be a much more open door.
We need a representative for workers' rights who will give the kind of assistance that the harassment officer will give mavericks, and who, in the same open way as the commissioner, will assist people who are genuinely concerned about trade union rights.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that legal assistance in tribunals was not wished upon trade union members as a result of some quirk on their part? Does my hon. Friend agree that the development of industrial tribunals has meant that, at tribunal after tribunal, employers have employed barristers and solicitors to represent their side? In effect, they have corrupted what was meant to be a largely informal arrangement whereby workers could represent themselves. Employers have so biased, shaped and prejudiced tribunals that workers are now desperately looking around to try to obtain some sort of legal representation.

Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend has made an extremely valuable point. He reminds me of the debate that is taking place at the moment in which trade union members of tribunals are beginning to say that the whole thing is so rigged now that their job is impossible. They say that it is pathetic to observe the complete imbalance between the barristers and all the rest representing employers on the one hand and trade union officials or lay representatives doing their best—or, on some occasions, a trade union member acting on his own behalf for some reason—on the other. They say that the imbalance is so appalling that they wonder whether it is really worth carrying on with the farce. They wonder whether they should pull out and expose the hypocrisy of the whole process because the bias is so great.
We have another difficulty with which the commissioner might be able to deal. Those representing employees' interests at a tribunal sometimes have difficulties with their employers—for example, in getting time off work or after they have had time off work. If the Government are serious about trade union rights, they could examine that possibility, and it could perhaps be worked into the new clause.
I was talking about non-trade union members. If we are to have a commissioner, there is huge scope for him to protect workers' rights. I shall refer to one example, about which I have written to the Minister, to illustrate the sort of work that the commissioner could usefully do, instead of harassing trade unions. Some young people contacted me saying that they had answered an advertisement for a job, in which they thought they would be properly employed. They went along and found out that it was not a proper job but a salesman's job. They were told that they would be paid £120 a week and would start to receive bonuses when they started selling things. They found that they could not sell anything. After a week or two they had not been paid a penny, and the employer said, "Well you had better go on signing on." In fact, they had been told not to sign off the dole in the first place.
As I have said this outside the House, I am happy to say it inside the House. Effectively, the employer had induced them illegally to claim benefit. The young people came to me because they did not have a commissioner to go to, as they might under new clause 3. I wrote to the Minister saying, "How about giving them an amnesty so that they can provide evidence against this crooked employer?" I asked him at least to agree that they would not be prosecuted because for a week or two they had wrongly claimed benefit. They had not received any other income while they had been claiming benefits, so it was only a technical offence. The Minister replied that he could not give an amnesty.
It is interesting to note the contrast between the attitude of the Department of Employment to fraudulent employers and its attitude when it is hounding and chasing people who it thinks have illegally claimed social security or unemployment benefit. That is something else with which the commissioner could help trade union members and others.

Ms. Short: We have touched on this subject before, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a growing problem, which affects not just one small group of people in his constituency. It is a growing malpractice among employers, who use the desperation of those on benefit to force them to work illegally and thus trap them. Once they


are claiming benefit and getting payment from the employer, which they know is illegal, the employer has them trapped. He can threaten to report them if they protest about any injustice at work. I am coming across more and more cases in my constituency; I am sure that the practice is growing.

Mr. Clay: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no proper statutory avenue for such people to take. That is why it would be useful to widen the new clause to provide a commissioner to deal with workers' rights—and if ever there was a case of workers' rights being under threat, this is one. Although the Minister told me that the young people could not have an amnesty, one or two of them were courageous enough to put their names to statements.
I was appalled when the regional fraud officer of the Department of Employment told me that the Department had never managed to produce a successful prosecution against an employer. He said that he knew that the practice went on and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, that it is growing, but that in the northern region there had never been a successful prosecution. I am not surprised, because the young people were in a very difficult position. They did not want to go to a solicitor. They did not understand all that. What use would a solicitor have been anyway? They did not have a trade union to protect them. They had come off the dole and gone for a job in desperation. All that they could do was to turn to a local advice centre funded by a hard-pressed local authority that is heavily penalised and then seek the advice of their Member of Parliament.
That is the sort of case that a commissioner for workers' rights could usefully deal with. He could help people who are told that they cannot join a union or that, if they do, this, that or the other might happen to them. He could help people who have been dismissed for joining a union. He could help those who, when trying to organise a union, are put on impossible shifts so that they cannot talk to other employees. He could help the person who has a known trade union record and is immediately transferred somewhere else to work on his own—the person who is told, "You will have to move to another factory 20 or 30 miles from where you live. There is not a place here for you any longer." When faced with the malpractices that employers get up to, employees could go to the commissioner to seek assistance in court and at tribunals.

Mr. Allen: Is not my hon. Friend's suggestion completely consistent with what Conservative Members said in Committee? They said that they were not about bashing the trade union movement even though they have tried to create the trade union movement in their own image. Therefore, everything that my hon. Friend suggests should be wholly supported by Conservative Members.

Mr. Clay: Of course. As I said, if we were seriously talking about the rights of trade unions, the Government would accept that trade unions are best able to judge for themselves the rights that they want. They certainly do want the right to litigate against each other for alleged minor infringements of balloting rules and so on. They want not only to exercise their existing rights under the health and safety legislation but to have more rights under better health and safety legislation. They want the right to organise. They want the right to time off and facilities in the workplace. They want to be able to hold union meetings.
The question of rights is an interesting one. The Bill is enthusiastic in its assertion that everyone must hold ballots for everything and that there must be postal ballots. However, if the Government were serious about trade union rights, they would insert into the Bill a little clause to say that meetings could be held when required in any work place. It is no good the Government saying that that would be too complicated; one has only to consider what they have done to try to get round alleged selective balloting and the tangle that they got into to over that. It was clear that they did not even understand their own Bill for quite a long time. There is no reason why we should not have a simple provision giving the automatic right to have mass meetings on full pay. The Government allege that they are keen on unions being able to consult their members. Therefore, when a union wants to consult its members, it should be able to have a mass meeting in or out of normal time and paid by the employer. That would be a very good provision. The commissioner could enforce that important aspect of trade union rights under the new clause. Of course, no such rights appear in the Bill, which is about nothing but harassment.
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is chairman of the parliamentary Labour party employment committee, will agree with me that we should develop the ideas in the new clause. We should expand the trade union rights that could be enforced by a genuine commissioner for trade union and workers' rights rather than the disgusting and pathetic harassment commissar whom the Government are appointing.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I hope that the Minister will respond to the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) about the alleged activities of the Economic League. It is a matter of basic democracy that citizens should be free from a potential threat to their lives and livelihoods from a secret "big brother" type of activity such as seems to be emerging from that organisation. If true, such activities are causing widespread concern beyond the House. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will address those points.

Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. colleague for giving way, but I ask him not to raise his hopes too high, as many of the organisations that donate money to keep the Economy League afloat also donate to the Conservative party. I, too, will be interested to see whether the Minister takes the opportunity to condemn from the Dispatch Box the activities of the Economic League. However, I ask my hon. colleague not to hold his breath and wait for that.

Mr. Welsh: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but my faith in human nature always tries to come through. This matter goes beyond party politics and to the basic democratic rights of citizens to be free from such "big brother" type activities, especially when they affect their lives and livelihoods. I hope that, as requested, the Minister will exercise his mind on that point.
6.30 pm
It is significant that opposition to the proposal for a commissioner comes from a wide range of sources. That leads to reasonable questioning of the setting up of the post of commissioner. The new clause is merely an attempt to patch up and improve what is basically a flawed Government proposal. As proposed, the commissioner


will be a figure of possible division and dispute within unions. He could be used by individuals deliberately to disrupt joint action and the overall business of trade unions. Such a situation would not be in anyone's interest. If the Bill remains unamended there is the problem that, instead of producing all the benefits that the Government claim would come from such a post, the commissioner would, on the contrary, himself become the subject of controversy and division, leading to distrust. Indeed, we have heard the beginnings of that in the debate, and if that came to pass it would detract from any case made by the commissioner. Surely the post must be non-political, but there is no guarantee, in any shape or form, in the Bill of such a non-political appointment. The new clause goes at least some way towards giving the commissioner a more balanced role.
There is also a danger that the new external agency could detract from and harm any new democratic rights given to trade union members. I believe that that is exactly the opposite of what the Government say they are trying to achieve.
We are entitled to ask what real case was made for extending the role of the Certification Officer. Why did the Government reject that simpler and easier move, which builds on existing institutions, rather than creating instead a whole new system of bureaucracy?
There are massive inbuilt difficulties in the Government's proposal to which they have not really addressed themselves. The appointment must be fundamentally non-political. It is hard enough for trade unions to swallow the idea of a commissioner, but it would lead to enormous problems if the person appointed were seen to be anti-trade union. We have all heard the beginnings of such feelings towards that person, unless that person is beyond all suspicion. It will be an almost impossible task for anyone appointed to gain the good will and good faith of the trade unions and their members unless that person is seen to be above such suspicions. Given that, how does the Minister intend to proceed in choosing such a "perfect" commissioner? The proposed legislation puts any appointee in an impossible one-sided position unless the commissioner looks at the employers, as this new clause seeks to allow him to do.
New clause 3 should be supported as a medicine for improving a bad and ill-thought out proposal. I hope that it will be supported.

Mr. Cryer: I should like to make a few brief comments about the new clause that my hon. Friends have tabled. It is a valuable addition to the debate on the Bill. I do not expect the Government to give it their support because the basic thrust of their legislation is to attack the trade union movement: not to make it more accountable or more democratic, but to smash it. The Government will not succeed, but that is their point and purpose. Therefore, I suspect that any new clause such as this, which seeks to redress the balance which is weighing heavily against trade unionists, will receive short shrift from the Government. I am willing to be proven wrong and if the Minister would like to cut short my remarks by intervening to say that the Government will accept the new clause, I shall welcome that and forgo my few moments of comment.
On the question of assistance for trade unionists, the new clause simply and modestly —I am surprised that

my hon. Friends have tabled such a modest new clause and shall discuss its modest nature shortly—attempts to give some sort of advice and guidance to trade union members who are facing the sack or the threat of dismissal because of their trade union activities or their non-membership of a trade union. Again, I shall elaborate on that shortly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for—

Mr. Clay: Sunderland, North.

Mr. Cryer: That's right, for Sunderland, North. I knew that it was somewhere in the north-east region, which has produced many distinguished Socialists, such as my hon. Friend.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) pointed out, the fact is that when trade unionists go to an industrial tribunal, which was intended as an informal discussion and decision on difficulties such as unfair dismissal, referred to in the new clause, they now face the difficulty that they are up against barristers employed by the employers, who can afford the huge and lavish fees that barristers command, or against solicitors, who charge whatever they do charge, but it can amount to several hundred pounds for a tribunal appearance.
Sometimes, trade unions can provide a legal service but the reality is that with a declining level of employment, trade union membership is declining, as is trade union income, so the sort of service that trade unions would like to provide to a member going to a tribunal is, of necessity, limited. Therefore, trade unionists going before a tribunal find themselves up against paid legal hacks who know the ropes, but they have to present their own case.
In fact, employers often comment, outrageously, that an unfair dismissal tribunal is an expensive business because they have to hire a solicitor. However, it was not in any way intended that that would be the case. The sort of provision contained in the new clause would enable some guidance to be given by a powerful figure.
The Government are to appoint the commissioner and he or she will not be receiving supplementary benefit levels. He or she will not be paid at, for example, the level of a caretaker in a state-maintained school. The salary of the commissioner will be in the stratosphere. If the commissioner works part-time, for two or three days per week, that person will receive about £30,000 or £40,000. If the commissioner works full-time, he or she will probably earn £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 per year. In our society, that sort of money is meant to give status and, therefore, power.
If a trade unionist goes to the commissioner and obtains advice under the terms of the new clause, that advice alone will assist the trade unionist in arguing his case. If the commissioner says, "I think that you have a very good case", that alone would pre-empt any further action because an employer will accept the position of the commissioner.
I must make my position clear. I do not think that the commissioner is necessary at all. I think that it is an unfair interference in free-standing organisations that, over the years, by and large, have run their affairs with democracy and fairness. Of course there have been exceptions, but no one in the Conservative party can say that there have been no exceptions to the normal standard of conduct that we expect from members of the Conservative Cabinet, whose conduct has not been unflawed. However, all Conservative


Cabinets are not to be condemned because one or two Ministers, from time to time, have erred in their public and private behaviour.
We can say with confidence that the vast majority of trade unions have been conducted honourably and have carried out their duties well, and that there is absolutely no case for the commissioner. He will be a spy for the Government because the commissioner, who we are asking to carry out duties under the new clause and to give balance, will be appointed on the same principle that the Government have appointed every area health authority chair and every chair for every public body on which they can lay their dirty hands.
They will appoint convinced Tories who will carry out the decisions of the Tory Government, and who will be like puppets pulled by strings from No. 10. If the Government have appointed people who are not Tories to a wide range of positions, let the Minister respond and give us a list of people who have not been carefully politically vetted by the Government. We can assume that the commissioner will not be some wonderful, neutral person who will do his or her job without any prejudice.
The commissioner will have a set of prejudices. He will go through the usual hypocritical motions that we in Britain are rather too fond of accepting. He or she will say "Of course I shall do my best by both sides, by the employers, and, of course, by the employees." We know, by virtue of the legislation and by virtue of the fact that the Government are the most Right-wing Government ever—

Mr. Michael Jack: That is why we are so successful.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman says that that is why they are so successful. They are not successful in electoral terms. The Opposition is divided, but that will end. The Government are not successful in economic terms, because in Scotland, where the hon. Gentleman comes from, there are lengthy dole queues. They are not successful in terms of the National Health Service because every other Conservative Member—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very good up to now in keeping to new clause 3. I hope that he will not allow himself to be detracted from it by sedentary remarks.

Mr. Cryer: I was provoked by the intervention of the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). I should not have allowed myself to be drawn, because I am concerned solely with new clause 3. Before I was rudely provoked, I was saying that the commissioner will not be a paragon of neutral virtue. He or she will be prejudiced, and those prejudices will match the prejudices of the Right-wing Government.
Therefore, it is important that the Bill should have some balances and checks. After all, we are always told that the British constitution — that vague and amorphous collection of rules—is full of balances and checks so that we maintain glorious neutrality. However, it is not quite like that, and we know it. We are trying to produce constitutional checks in the Bill. My guess is that the Government, in their Right-wing extremism, will not accept new clause 3 because it is a check to bring something to bear on the side of labour.
New clause 3 seeks to provide a balance between capital and labour. Trade unions are simply bodies of people trying to organise sufficient strength to equal the power of capital. The power of capital can determine the disposition of production factors—the location of the factory, the machinery inside it, the hours of work and the level of wages. The trade union movement attempts simply to equal that power by saying that people, throughout their lives, should try to equate that power and modify those decisions in the interests of the community in the factory, the offices or the shop premises. The new clause is trying to bring something to bear on the side of David against the Goliath of the employers.
Conservative Members have maintained that trade unions are all-powerful. That simply is not true. It never has been true. It is a myth that British trade unions have been extremely powerful. Since the Conservative Government came to power, with one or two isolated exceptions where we have had minor victories, trade unions have never been able to halt the ruthless programme of closures and the massacre of the British manufacturing industry that has cost 2 million jobs since 1979, mostly in the north of England.
New clause 3 clearly is necessary to put some weight on the side of those who continually battle, day in and day out, against the onslaught from employers who are confident in their attacks against the trade union movement because the Government are organising it through legislation.

Mr. Allen: I have been looking at the references in the Bill to remuneration for the trade union harassment officer. The Bill states:
There shall be paid to the Commissioner such remuneration and such travelling or other allowance as the Secretary of State may determine … Payments required and made under this paragraph shall be made by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.
There is also a lengthy paragraph about the payment of travelling expenses and so on to applicants. It seems that the £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, £60,000 or £70,000 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred may be merely speculation. There is absolutely no ceiling on the expenses and salary for this job.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has made a point that emphasises the need for new clause 3. We are discussing people who will live in the stratosphere of incomes. Such people will not be aware of or understand the struggle on the shop floor. They will not be aware of the little indignities that people have to suffer. People have to wait outside doors to ask for time to go to meetings or to discuss health and safety at work, as such matters are left to the discretion of employers and not to the employees or workers. They will not have had to face the possibility of dismissal because of trade union activities.
Lord Wedderburn, an accepted expert on industrial relations and industrial law, has pointed out that people are not normally dismissed for trade union activities. The employer usually waits for something to latch on to in order to get rid of a person for some infringement and not because he is a shop steward. We know who normally heads a list of redundancies — the shop stewards. Employers will say that it is merely chance, but we know that it is part of the intimidation process to stop people participating in trade union activities.
Recently a relative of mine was asked to work three weekends in a row. When she said, "What about trade union membership?", the managing director said that it would be frowned on. What was she to do? Was she to go against the managing director? What would the consequence of that have been? It would almost certainly have meant that her work would have come under close scrutiny and some opportunity taken to dismiss her, not because she was a trade union member, but for some other entirely spurious reason.
The new clause would provide guidance and assistance from this highly paid commissioner to people who face double jeopardy. They include sacked miners. Several miners have been picked on viciously and vindictively by the vicious and vindictive management of British Coal. Following the miners' strike, miners found not guilty of any offence were given their cards and sent down the road. They were not re-employed. As they had been to a court and had been found not guilty, that should have been the end of the matter. Equally, if they had been found guilty and punished that should have been the end of the matter. Miners have faced double jeopardy because the NCB, now British Coal, has used that excuse not to allow them to return to work.
The commissioner under the new clause could put his weight behind those people who were merely carrying out trade union activities. The miners were simply plucked from a picket line by police activists who wanted someone to arrest, and had a charge stuck on them. Even where the charge was not sustained, the miners were dismissed. At present the miners have only the support of the NUM under its president Arthur Scargill who has maintained a principled attitude towards this. With new clause 3 that sort of injustice would at least come a step nearer rectification.

Mr. Clay: Does my hon. Friend know that on several occasions some Labour Members from the northern region have visited British Coal management in that region about these matters and have drawn attention to the names of sacked miners, who were not only found not guilty in the courts but ordered to be reinstated by industrial tribunals, which British Coal has refused to do? Is he aware that on one such occasion a senior figure in British Coal implied that British Coal understood what was right and wrong better than the courts? In other words, he implied that British Coal felt it was above the courts. When one considers employers like that, does it not make out a case for the tremendously powerful commissioner figure to be directed against such employers, rather than to harass trade unions?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That would fall exactly under new clause 3(a) which deals with any
complaint by an employee of unfair dismissal by reason of trade union membership, activities of non-membership.
Obviously, it would be right to bring in the commissioner on the side of the employee.
When my hon. Friend made his intervention I was reminded of a note which I have with me. Last night, I was talking to a friend who was telling me about his firm. I shall not mention its name because of the possibility of repercussions. A man has been unemployed for about five years although he is skilled, and we are always told that

there is a shortage of skilled people. The firm he worked for, machine tool manufacturers, was closed — part of the booming Thatcher economy—and the other people at the firm found jobs, but he did not. Why? Because he was the convener of the shop stewards. This new clause would help such people.
It angers me because I can see the Ministers sitting ready to bring out the clichés. The Minister will stand up and say, "The Government are concerned about all these things and about innocent parties who happen to be members of a trade union and who for one reason or another or because of the intransigence of their employers, which we do not like, have been unemployed for years." We know that the Government are aiming at that. The consequences flow from their legislation.
The attacks on the trade union movement which the Government have instituted consistently since 1980 have reduced the power of organised labour, which has never been as great as that of organised capital in our history. The Government have beaten the heads of ordinary working men and women who have nothing more than their labour to offer. They do not have factories, machines or offices. Most of them are lucky if they have half a mortgage for a house, and the houses are not grand detached houses, but ordinary terraced or council houses. Those are the people who will be affected.
The Government will reject the new clause because they cynically discard the aspirations and hopes of ordinary working people. That is why we shall continue to treat the Government with the contempt that they so richly deserve.

Mr. Nicholls: I shall try to do justice to the many speeches that we have heard. It says much for the ingenuity of hon. Members that they have been able to have such a wide-ranging debate and yet remain in order.
The hon. Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) raised particular points about legal aid, some of which I dealt with in my opening remarks. Legal aid certainly is means-tested, and should be, because it is being applied for and, if granted, will be used to obtain private rights and, indeed, possibly monetary compensation, too. If one is talking about a system that should be made available to obtain public rights, obviously means-testing would not be appropriate.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) treated us to a display which we all richly enjoyed. He had some particular suggestions about whom we might appoint as the trade union commissioner, and that was taken up by other hon. Gentlemen. I am not entirely sure what they want me to make of those recommendations. Perhaps I should not speculate at this stage. The essence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that he regarded the legislation as being motivated by sentiments which were both bad and vindictive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment cannot be accused of being bad and vindictive, and whatever sinister suspicions the right hon. Gentleman may harbour about me, in no sense can I be said to be the author of the legislation. In all seriousness, I cannot accept the idea that we are bad and vindictive.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) quoted from paragraph 6(9) of the Green Paper with some idea that he might embarrass us. If time permitted I would read the rest of that paragraph, because it points out why it is necessary to have a trade union commissioner. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a


number of points which amounted to the fact that he was convinced that the trade union commissioner would be a commissar for trade union harassment. He repeated that on a number of occasions. However, the fact that the commissioner cannot act on his own volition and has discretion whether or not to take up cases referred to him should be a safeguard.
7 pm
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) shared a doubt expressed by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) regarding the political impartiality of the trades union commissioner. It was suggested that it might be a Tory appointment. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to go round prying into the political allegiances or otherwise of anyone who accepted any form of public office. Unless statute provides, no statutory authority can be directed by a Minister of the Crown and that is the best safeguard against any political partiality.
The hon. Member for Ashfield was also concerned about Conservative Trade Unionists infiltration. I can only believe that he has such a concern because he believes that it is impossible for Conservatives to be members of a trades union, and that is a bizarre idea to hold. However, I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for concluding his remarks by describing me as "politically vicious". Listening to his other remarks I was afraid he might cut short a political career before it had started. Although he believes that I am personally nice, I thank him for describing me as "politically vicious". However, I must formally deny that I am politically vicious, but I certainly would not deny his other claim.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke of blacklisting or the right not to employ people because they are trade unionists. Obviously there is a distinction to be made between dismissing people for trade union activity and trying to dress it up as something else. There is no doubt where we all stand. One cannot be dismissed for trade union activities. The only fetters that we put on the right of an employer to discriminate against somebody, even before he has employed him, are based on either sex or race. We regard that as correct. However, for the reasons that I stated in Committee, possibly as compulsively as I do now, we do not believe that an employer should be fettered if he decides to employ someone because he is or is not a member of a trade union.
In the end one must return to the words of the new clause and see what it hopes to address. We believe that there is a fatal underlying fallacy throughout the new clause in so far as it tries to equate the legal aid system with the assistance provided by the commissioner. For all the reasons that I have tried to lay before the House, we cannot regard that approach as valid. Therefore, we urge the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Meacher: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate.
A number of my hon. Friends have referred to the Minister as being conciliatory and congenial. I believe that they were rather generous, especially having listened to his rather discursive and dismissive remarks, which in no way sought to answer the major points that have been made by my hon. Friends.
I listened with great care to the Under-Secretary, but he has put forward only three arguments in defence of the Government's position. The first was that, despite the

existence of the courts and the Certification Officer, trade unionists need the commissioner to assist them in actions against trade unions while industrial tribunals are already available for actions against the employer. The Minister also said that industrial tribunals were expeditious and helpful, but the fact is that there are considerable delays. Indeed, in their White Paper on reducing the barriers to business the Government are proposing a £25 access fee.
The Minister has not answered the key point. Indeed, there is no answer. If trade union members have access to a Certification Officer and the courts, but still need the commissioner, surely trade union members who have access to industrial tribunals also need the commissioner in respect of actions against the employer. That is our central argument.
Secondly, the Under-Secretary said that the commissioner cannot look for trouble, but that is a disingenuous statement if ever there was one. The clauses are drafted as positive encouragement to litigation rather than to conciliation. I draw the attention of the House to the tell-tale phrase in paragraph 6 of the Green Paper:
the courts are not being used.
No doubt that was written by the last civil servant at the Department of Employment with a grasp of reality, the last man in a universe of Ionesco's rhinos frantically signalling the Government's real intentions to the outside world. If we had some truth and honesty from Ministers when they come to the Dispatch Box they would say that trade union members are not using the courts against their unions and that, of course, there is much abuse. There may not be any evidence of it, but the Government know about it because they read about it every day in the Daily Mail. The Government's view is, "The courts have got to be used and we will jolly well make sure that they are." That is the role of the commissioner.
The third argument advanced by the Minister was that the commissioner would use discretion on whether to take up issues. That may be true, but I believe that the Minister will forgive us if, taking account of the Government's hostility towards trade unions and given that the Government will exercise the same kind of partisan patronage in making the appointment, we believe that the commissioner will exercise a malevolent discretion against trade unions. Indeed, my hon. Friends have repeatedly referred to the appointment and one described the commissioner as the nationalisation of the privatisation role of that agent provocateur, David Hart. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that we suppose that the commissioner will exercise such malevolent discretion.
The true grievances of the trade union members are not against their unions. That is why they do not use the Certification Officer or the courts. Their real grievances are in respect of employers and concern the lack of consultation and information over unfair dismissals — 30,000 cases every year are heard and one tenth are upheld by the tribunals. They concern health and safety matters. There has been a major reduction in the number of health and safety inspectors and a consequential rise in the serious maiming of many workers. Trade union members have grievances about the illegally low wages — below what is agreed by the wages inspectorate—that are paid by employers. They have grievances about the right to trade union membership in the first place, as instanced at GCHQ.
None of those issues will be within the purview of the commissioner as drafted in the Bill. This is a dissident's


charter and that is what the Government want. We are opposed to that, and for that reason we propose to push the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 243.

Division No. 168]
[7.7 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allen, Graham
Foster, Derek


Alton, David
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Donald
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Galbraith, Samuel


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashdown, Paddy
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Graham, Thomas


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barron, Kevin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Battle, John
Grocott, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Hardy, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Haynes, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Heffer, Eric S.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Henderson, Douglas


Bermlngham, Gerald
Hinchliffe, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boateng, Paul
Holland, Stuart


Boyes, Roland
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buckley, George
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Janner, Greville


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
John, Brynmor


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clay, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clelland, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cohen, Harry
Kirkwood, Archy


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lamond, James


Corbett, Robin
Leighton, Ron


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Cousins, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Cox, Tom
Litherland, Robert


Crowther, Stan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cummings, J.
McAllion, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Tom


Cunningham, Dr John
McCartney, Ian


Dalyell, Tam
McCrea, Rev William


Darling, Alastair
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McFall, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
McLeish, Henry


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Doran, Frank
McTaggart, Bob


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max


Dunnachie, James
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marek, Dr John


Eadie, Alexander
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Faulds, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Fearn, Ronald
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meacher, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Michael, Alun


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)





Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Short, Clare


Morgan, Rhodri
Skinner, Dennis


Morley, Elliott
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mullin, Chris
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Paul
Steinberg, Gerald


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, William
Strang, Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Parry, Robert
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Pendry, Tom
Wall, Pat


Pike, Peter
Walley, Ms Joan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Prescott, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Michael (Doncasfer N)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wigley, Dafydd


Reid, John
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Richardson, Ms Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Anthony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, James


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Frank Cook and


Sheerman, Barry
Mrs. Llin Golding.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Allason, Rupert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amos, Alan
Cope, John


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Aspinwall, Jack
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bellingham, Henry
Favell, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Benyon, W.
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gorst, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowis, John
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawkins, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carrington, Matthew
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)






Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, Sir David


Hill, James
Raffan, Keith


Hind, Kenneth
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Redwood, John


Holt, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howard, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rost, Peter


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowe, Andrew


Irvine, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Jack, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jackson, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Janman, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knowles, Michael
Speed, Keith


Knox, David
Speller, Tony


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Latham, Michael
Squire, Robin


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stevens, Lewis


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Lord, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Summerson, Hugo


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Madel, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Major, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm


Marland, Paul
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maude, Hon Francis
Tracey, Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tredinnick, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moate, Roger
Walden, George


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Ward, John


Mudd, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Neale, Gerrard
Warren, Kenneth


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Onslovv, Rt Hon Cranley
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Nicholas


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wood, Timothy


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Woodcock, Mike


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Noes:


Portillo, Michael
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Alan Howarth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

RIGHT TO A BALLOT BEFORE INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'as it' and insert
`imposing requirements on the union as the court'.
The Opposition expressed concern in Committee that, under clause 1, a trade union member might be ordered to perform his contract of employment. Further consideration has suggested that there is a remote possibility that the clause would be interpreted in that way. The amendment will ensure that it cannot be. I hope, therefore, that it will commend itself to the Opposition and the House.

Mr. Gavin Strang: As the Minister said, the amendment was tabled in response to our complaints in Committee that the original form of clause 1 would allow a court to take any action it considered appropriate to prevent or reverse an act or authorisation by a union in connection with unlawful industrial action, which might have included an order against an individual or a group wholly independent of the union in question. For example, if an independent newspaper or magazine supports an industrial dispute and reproduces an authorisation by a union of that dispute which is subsequently ruled unlawful, action might be taken against the publication. The original form of the clause was so badly drafted and so draconian that even the Government could not defend it. The amendment in no way deals with our central concern about the clause—that it will sanction unjustified and damaging action against a union by a dissident member—but it at least removes the danger to third parties.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

RIGHT NOT TO BE UNJUSTIFIABLY DISCIPLINED

Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 40, leave out clauses 3 to 5.
We are now coming to the heart of the Bill. As we have made clear throughout our deliberations, the Bill is an outrage. It is an extreme measure designed to weaken and undermine the role of trade unions in our society. This part of the Bill will deny unions the legal right to discipline members who fail to comply with action advocated by the union. That is especially outrageous, and has been the focus of much critical comment from a whole range of organisations, most of which are usually aligned with the Government on political matters.
It was interesting last week to hear leading figures in industry interviewed on the Government's legislation, against a background of industrial disputes, arguing that the Government had tipped the balance too far in the direction of employers. Of course, we have been arguing that ever since the Government introduced their first Bill against the trade unions. It is significant that last week Sir John Harvey-Jones, the recently retired chairman of ICI, said, when interviewed on the BBC, that the Government had tipped the scales too far against the trade unions. He went so far as to suggest that some of the industrial disruption that we are now experiencing was a backlash reaction to such legislation.
The basis of the Government's justification for the legislation is that—to use the Ministers' phrase—they are giving the trade unions back to their members. Part of the argument is that trade unions are responsible for industrial disputes, and strikes can somehow be solved by preventing trade union leaders, officials or elected officers urging workers to come out on strike. If there was ever a time when that argument can be shown to be utterly fallacious, it is now.
Is it seriously being suggested that the disruption in the National Health Service is a consequence of trade unions urging their members to come out on strike against their will? Far from it. The role of the trade unions in the Health Service is to persuade Health Service workers that no one's life should be put at risk by their action. The role of the trade union officials in the industrial action in the Health Service is that of seeking to minimise the hardship arising from the action, while recognising and supporting the strength of feeling of workers—of nurses and ancilliary workers alike.
Is it seriously suggested that those in the seamen's dispute are taking action because they have been urged to do so by militant trade union officials? The opposite is true. The national and local leaders of the union have been pleading with those workers to resume working, and the fact that some ferries are still not sailing is a measure of the strength of feeling of the union members, despite exhortations from the National Union of Seamen to resume working. In that dispute as well as the Health Service dispute, we have a clear demonstration that the idea that, it is the trade union leaders who are pulling people out on strike and causing disruption against the will of the members, is nonsense.
7.30 pm
The Ford dispute has been the subject of comment during the debate. Is it seriously suggested that in the strike the trade union leadership and officials are urging the Ford workers to take action against their better judgment? Far from it. In fact, the strike reflects the strength of feeling in the Ford work force against the final amended offer. As I think the Secretary of State himself said in the exchanges earlier this afternoon, in that dispute the trade union negotiators recommended the amended offer to the work force.
Therefore, the idea that somehow we need the legislation because the trade unions are causing disruption is nonsense. As we said repeatedly in Committee, trade union officials spend 90 per cent. of their time avoiding and settling disputes. When there is industrial action, almost invariably it reflects the strength of feeling of the workers. After all, it is the workers, not the trade union officials, nor the owners or managers of the company, who suffer and lose their earnings in an industrial dispute. So I take it that we shall hear no more of the nonsense that somehow it has been necessary to introduce the legislation to give the trade unions back to their members because trade unions are not representative of their members.
The measure is extreme. It is a reflection of how extreme it is that so many organisations came out against it during consultation on the Green Paper. Let me remind the House of some of the comments by those

organisations. The Industrial Society, referring to what has loosely and rather inaccurately been called the right to go to work despite a strike call, stated:
We are very concerned that if the individual union member has a legal right to circumvent a properly taken majority decision and thus may be held to have no responsibility towards his/her union, there will be no reason why anyone should take the balloting process seriously. The likely consequence is that the value of the beneficial measures already introduced will be lost.
The Institute of Personnel Management states:
The Green Paper appears not to accept that a trade union (when properly run) is a body, which, no less than a commercial organisation, disciplines people behind a legitimate purpose. The use of the law to deny such a body any opportunity to discipline members when they infringe rules which go to the heart of the contract between the union and its members, is coming close to denying the body any legal standing. This is a far cry from action to ensure that trade unions are democratically-run.
Finally—there has been frequent reference to this—even the Confederation of British Industry has come out against elements of clauses 3, 4 and 5. It states:
The principal argument against the proposal is that it could undermine the balloting process itself, so productively encouraged by the 1984 Trade Union Act insofar as it was seen to provide a form of statutory protection for those refusing to be bound by the results of such a ballot. It is a measure of the importance that employers attach to the proper pursuit of balloting procedures that the CBI believes it would be right, for the time being at least, to take this proposal no further.
The proposal is patently unjust. How far can one seek to undermine the role of the trade unions? How far can one tip the scale against them? When there is a proper ballot on industrial action and an overwhelming majority vote for it, the trade union calls its members out on strike or to take some form of industrial action, such as an overtime ban. If some members of the trade union refuse to comply with that call, it is fundamental that those individuals should be subject to the discipline of the trade union. As the organisations that I quoted have argued, it undermines the democratic process and weakens the principle of balloting to which the Government are so attached to say that, even when there is a ballot, that ballot will not give the trade union the authority to discipline its members for breaching the call for industrial action. Therefore, we submit, as do the Freedom Association and a range of organisations, that the proposal is fundamentally antidemocratic.
It is important to understand that we cannot legislate on how trade unions and their members feel during an industrial dispute. Let us take the Ford dispute as an example. Of course, we all hope that it will be settled soon because of the damaging consequences to our economy if it continues. But is anyone suggesting that in a dispute, when individuals breach an official decision which has been properly reached to call a strike, that that will not cause resentment on the part of the vast majority of workers who are complying with the strike decision? Of course, it will provoke tremendous strength of feeling, and tremendous anger and bitterness can be generated. It is understandable, especially if there is a prolonged strike and trade unionists and families are suffering in the struggle, and see their efforts being undermined by individual trade union members, who will eventually benefit from any settlement that the trade union achieves. Those individuals might help to prolong the strike unnecessarily.
Of course, trade unionists are outraged in such a situation. The benefit of the right of the trade union to discipline its members is that in those circumstances the workers can say to themselves, "At least we know that when the strike is over those individuals who are members of our trade union and have failed to comply with our collective action will be called to book." That has a positive effect. It means that people are less likely to take the law into their own hands. That is one of the reasons why industrial disputes in this country are, in general, conducted on a much more orderly and disciplined basis than in many countries — not only Europe, but, on occasions, the United States. It is because there is that discipline, and because the trade union can, in the main, control its members. It is because, when the decision is taken, the members know that if people undermine the collective decision of the trade union there is a proper, orderly procedure whereby those individuals will eventually be disciplined. The removal of that sanction will, in many cases, encourage individuals, wrongly, to take the law into their own hands. It will create more anarchy, disruption and, dare I say it, possibly more violence on the picket lines when there is a prolonged industrial dispute.
One must also consider the authority of the trade union movement. I quoted the CBI. It goes without saying that the TUC and the trade unions are against the proposals. That is why we seek in the amendment to delete them from the Bill. Hon. Members must ponder this question: why are so many of the employers' organisations against this proposal? I have already given one of the arguments. Another was probably put best by the Engineering Employers Federation, which said:
It is thus possible that the respect and importance now accorded to the pre-strike ballot will be diminished by this proposal.
That is the point that I made earlier. The federation continues:
There are also grounds for believing that another consequence could be generally to undermine the authority of officials of unions whose responsibility it is to secure the compliance of their members with the provisions of collective agreements. This would be particularly disadvantageous in certain industries (for example, Engineering Construction) where the authority of full-time union officials may quite commonly need to be exercised in order to prevent unconstitutional action on sites where employees of many different employers, in membership of several different unions, are working closely together.
That makes the point very effectively.
Whatever regret we may have about the current dispute at Ford, I should have thought that hon. Members would want the dispute to be conducted in a disciplined and orderly manner. We want the dispute settled as soon as possible. I should have thought that an orderly dispute ending with a settlement between trade unions and their members would be in the interests of all concerned.
The problem with the Government's proposal for employers—and our opposition to it goes much wider than this—is that the prospect of conducting disputes in an orderly manner, for a range of industries, will be undermined by this extreme and excessive element of the legislation.
There is no question but that, in the main, trade unions and their officials work to avoid disputes. When disputes arise, it is their role to settle them. Inevitably, there is conflict between capital and labour. In those circumstances, there are occasions when it is necessary for

workers to act collectively and to withdraw their labour to secure a fair outcome in relation to the profits and wealth that their efforts create for the company.
In a case such as Ford, workers and management have a common interest in the firm succeeding, making a profit, investing, providing employment and making its contribution to the local economy. The role of the trade unions is to ensure that their members receive a fair deal, and to sustain and encourage the development of the industry so that it will continue to maintain employment and raise the living standards of their workers in the future.
This is an extreme and obnoxious measure in an extreme and obnoxious Bill. We debated it at length in Committee — we make no apology for that — and the Government have tabled some amendments, which we shall deal with later. The purpose of the new clause is to put on record our complete opposition to this part of the legislation and to appeal to the Government, at this stage of their deliberations, to think again about this outrageous measure, to recognise how indefensible their position is against the background of the current industrial action and to withdraw their clauses.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): rose—

Mr. Foot: I am sorry if I interrupted the Secretary of State as he was about to withdraw his proposals. If that was his intention, I shall happily give way.
I should like to make one or two points to the Secretary of State, as he is in charge of the Department of Employment. One of the worst aspects of the legislation that the right hon. Gentleman is introducing is the further injury that it causes to the reputation of the Department of Employment in the industrial world.
The Department of Employment used to be withdrawn, to some degree, from some of the other aspects of Government action. In the old days, the Ministry of Labour sought to keep the powers of arbitration and conciliation separate from other Government action. In some respects, it was regarded as a body removed from Government pressure and influence. It did not always take the Government view in these matters. For a considerable period, the Ministry of Labour and the old Department of Employment had power to arbitrate in and deal with industrial disputes.
This part of the Bill is the most offensive of the measures that the Government have taken. The previous measures that they took have gradually reduced any claim that the Department of Employment can approach these matters in an impartial or objective spirit.
7.45 pm
Some parts of the old Department of Employment were rightly taken away and given to ACAS and other institutions; different forms of institutions were established to take over the functions of the Ministry of Labour. As I was responsible for some of these transfers, I think that it was a perfectly proper course to take. It was highly desirable that the Department of Employment retained the ability to intervene in disputes. However, if the Department was to be successful in that it had to be intervention that would be considered as the Government intervening not in their own interests but to achieve industrial peace.
That reputation has been cast aside by the Government. This measure is the final act. It has shown the violent prejudice in the Department against retaining its old reputation.
It is ironic that this miserable measure has been brought before the House on the day of the Ford strike. It underlines the absurdity of the way in which the Government have gone about these matters. I shall consider later how the Ford strike would be affected if this legislation were in operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has already raised that important matter, which will affect strikes in the future. The consequences of the Government's proposals are very serious.
The Government are faced with an industrial dispute of major proportions. The loss to Ford is reckoned to be about £17 million a day. If the dispute continues, it will be a serious matter not only for Ford and its workers but for our industrial position. It will have consequences for Britain's trade, and all those matters will develop in the next two or three weeks if the dispute continues. The last strike at Ford went on for nine weeks and was an immensely costly affair.
At the beginning of the proceedings, the Secretary of State said that the strike was nothing to do with him. He said that the Department of Employment has no interest in the matter, and that it had nothing to propose to avoid the catastrophe of the strike going ahead.
If the Bill were in operation, it would be even more difficult for the Department to say that it would not intervene. It is a scandal for the Government to talk in such terms to the House. But we have only to remember the way in which Ministers spoke to the House during the coal strike. They claimed that the Department of Employment would not intervene in any of the negotiations, in what was happening on the picket lines or on the allegations of violence. The Prime Minister made the same claim that the Government's new method of dealing with industrial disputes was not to intervene at all, but the truth tumbled out during the general election campaign when she boasted on television about how long and skilfully the Government had fought the miners.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but his remarks are very wide of the amendment.

Mr. Foot: If you will allow me just a moment or two more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will clinch the matter for all concerned. My point is entirely relevant to the way in which industrial disputes will be still further exacerbated if this measure goes through. I believe that the Bill will lead to the breakdown of industrial discipline, as I shall illustrate directly.
I was comparing what the Minister is proposing here with what he said earlier about the industrial dispute that is currently in all our minds. The Minister claims that the Department has nothing to do with such disputes and would not think of intervening. That is a policy of abdication, but I do not believe that his statement is true. The Minister has undoubtedly discussed the matter in his committees and with the Prime Minister and others in exactly the same way as happened during the miners' strike; all the Government's claims about nonintervention were utterly disproved just a few months

later. I believe that their current claims will be disproved later today. It was especially ill advised of the Minister to claim that he had no role to play in the Ford dispute when he intended later the same day to try to carry through the proposals before us.
Let us consider what would be the position at Ford's if the proposal were already in operation. Suppose the union had gone through all the ballots and legal procedures prescribed by the Government and come out on strike. If a few members decided to break the strike and return to work, under the present law the union would have power to seek to persuade those members to back their colleagues and sustain the strike. Under the Government's proposal, although the strike was backed by a ballot, any form of discipline by the union would be undermined. Presumably that is the Government's aim. It would be a travesty of everything that we have ever learnt about how to conduct industrial relations if, when a union has taken every legal precaution to ensure that the action has full backing and has followed all the Government's prescribed balloting procedures, the Government seek to introduce a further measure to incite a few members to render the whole action nugatory. That is a recipe for hopeless anarchy. It is the more disgraceful that such a proposition should come from the Department of Employment, which should have at its fingertips and in its records all the evidence to show how monstrous would be the consequences of such a measure.
The evidence of the Industrial Society has already been quoted from the Opposition Front Bench. No one could claim that that body is arguing the case in some obstreperous way. The TUC disagrees with many of its views. Nevertheless, the Industrial Society has a long record of seeking to achieve a sensible outcome in industrial relations. The society's view of the Government's action is as relevant now as it was when the Green Paper was published. At that time, the Industrial Society said:
The most significant proposal, however, in the entire Green Paper, concerns the right for an individual to work after a majority balloted decision to strike.
That brings us back to the current Ford strike. The society continues:
Whatever the Government's own motivation, this will undoubtedly be interpreted by trade unions as prejudicing their basic role, which is to negotiate acceptable terms and conditions on behalf of all their members. This does involve, from time to time, sanctions on the employer. We are very concerned that if the individual union member has a legal right to circumvent a properly taken majority decision and thus may be held to have no responsibility towards his/her union, there will be no reason why anyone should take the balloting process seriously. The likely consequence is that the value of the beneficial measures already introduced will be lost.
Some of us disagree about the so-called beneficial aspects of previous legislation, but the Industrial Society supported the Government in some of those measures. The logic of its argument in relation to this measure, however, is overwhelming. If the Government force this proposal through, they will injure the whole balloting process and undermine its authority.
What would happen in a case such as the Ford dispute if the Government's proposals were implemented? The union having balloted strongly for a strike, a tiny minority would be able to say that they have the Government on their side in undermining the whole process. The result will be anarchy from the outset. The Government clearly wish


to undermine all forms of effective trade unionism, but the result will he to create chaos in industrial relations throughout the country. That is not just the view of the Opposition. It is shared by almost all the bodies that have studied the Government's proposals, including the Industrial Society, the Confederation of British Industry and originally even the Conservative Trade Unionists, if such a laughable group still exists. The message from all of them was, "It is madness—for heaven's sake don't do it."
It is especially regrettable and deplorable—they are mild words in the circumstances—that the Department of Employment should throw away its authority in this way. We should be re-establishing the authority of conciliation and arbitration and the idea that there are impartial people to whom one can appeal. Most industrial disputes are a clash not between right and wrong but between two rights or the result of the kind of arguments that have occurred at Ford's, between the bulk of the membership and union leaders whom the Government, through previous legislation, have deprived of the right to negotiate effectively. The Government now seek to carry the process still further.
Any Minister at the Department of Employment who seeks to push a measure of this nature against all the recommendations of every sector of industry does not deserve the power to intervene in any future dispute. The Minister said that he had no interest in intervening in the Ford dispute, but if the action continues and the country loses thousands of millions of pounds there will have to be some intervention.
It is shameful and shocking that, almost for the first time in history, a Minister at the Department of Employment will have thrown away any authority whatever to intervene in such matters, and to try to restore industrial peace. I hope that even at this thirteenth hour the Minister will think again and withdraw these wretched proposals.

8 pm

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment will wind up the debate, but I wish to respond directly to what the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, particularly about the tradition of the Ministry of Labour and the Department of Employment. I do not believe that any law can eliminate disputes, but it is worth pointing out that the last three years have seen fewer strikes than at any stage since the war, and fewer days have been lost through strikes in the past two or three years than at any stage in the past 20 years. Before the right hon. Gentleman talks about traditions, it is worth remembering the record of the past few years.
However distinguished a predecessor of mine the right hon. Gentleman may have been, I am not inclined to take lectures about this from him, particularly given his prominent part in a Government who presided over the worst industrial anarchy we have seen, in 1978. No one is claiming that the industrial relations position has been transformed by trade union law alone, but little would have been achieved without that reform, and the Government have tackled that issue. Over the past few years we have seen the success of that approach and we have seen the basic support for it given by the British people, with the exception of a few Labour Members.

Mr. Cryer: Have not the Government statistics for loss of working days as a result of industrial disputes been slightly changed? For example, in the Silentnight strike in Yorkshire, when the strikers were sacked after a few weeks, they no longer appeared in the statistics for strike action, even though their strike lasted a further 12 months. They would not have appeared in the statistics even if their jobs had been returned.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. Any objective observer with whom the hon. Gentleman would like to get in touch—for example, the Industrial Society — will tell him that strikes have markedly decreased, not just compared with the past few years but in the period since the war, and days lost have gone down as well. The public will not be much impressed by what the hon. Gentleman has said because they remember the position from which we have recovered, and what the position has been over the past year.
Clause 3 establishes a right for union members not to be unjustifiably disciplined by the union, and specifies the conduct for which discipline is unjustifiable. Clause 4 establishes procedures in which union members may present complaints to tribunals that they have been unjustifiably disciplined and empowers the tribunal to make a declaration where it finds a complaint well founded. Clause 5 sets out procedures under which a union member whose complaint of unjustifiable discipline to an industrial tribunal has been declared well founded may apply for a reward or compensation.
In resisting the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who quite fairly said that this was debated at great length in Committee, I make one fundamental point. The proposal was set out fully in the Green Paper published last February. It then became a specific election pledge and was contained in our election manifesto. There was no question of keeping this proposal hidden. We set it out to the public. In paragraph 2.10 of the Green Paper we said clearly:
The right of the individual to choose to go to work despite a call to take industrial action is an essential freedom.
In 2.13, we said:
Unions have not been slow to enforce their powers over dissenting minorities.
We went on to give examples of that. We have been clear and explicit on our intentions. We set them out clearly in our election manifesto to the British public and Labour Members know the result of that election.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister telling us that he has been clear and open about this matter? I cannot remember the exact words of the manifesto, but as I recall it referred only to strikes. It did not refer to industrial action. The scope of clause 3 is virtually unlimited. The Secretary of State may be able to massage unemployment figures, but he should not massage his party's manifesto.

Mr. Fowler: I agree that clause 3 does not apply only to industrial action. However, in essence it applies to industrial action, and the manifesto explicitly said:
We will introduce legislation to … protect individual members from disciplinary action if they refuse to join a strike they disagree with".
As I understood the first two speeches made about the amendment, precisely that point is being opposed. I make no complaint about that, but we should not confuse ourselves by saying that that is not the essence of the debate.
Although unions are in general protected against the legal consequences of inducing employees to break their contracts to the employer, the individual trade union member has no such protection. The union member then has a number of obligations. He has an obligation to his trade union—no one disputes that—but he also has an obligation to his employer under his contract of employment and wider obligations to the community and, more particularly, to his family. These separate duties and obligations can pull an individual in different directions. Our view is that he should not be influenced in coming to a decision by fear of disciplinary action taken against him by the trade union.
We are not talking just about the beginning of a strike. An individual trade union member may have gone along with a majority decision and gone out on strike. Suppose that the strike goes on for two or three weeks, or even longer, and the employer makes a new offer. The union executive, for reasons of its own, may decide to continue the dispute. The individual member, and perhaps some others, may decide that the offer is fair and reasonable. The Opposition are suggesting that in those circumstances those union members who vote with their feet and go back to work should be subject to the discipline of the trade union. In Committee, we rejected that proposition.
One reason for that rejection has been the willingness of unions to take disciplinary action. We are not talking about a theoretical danger. The Green Paper listed a number of examples of large-scale disciplinary action by unions — for example, the National Union of Railwaymen disciplined some 12,000 members, and the National Communications Union is reported to have expelled 1,000 members and to be considering disciplinary action against others. There was also disciplinary action after the miners' strike. There are long and well-documented cases of disciplinary action being taken.
To take up the complaint of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), it is true that this clause is designed to protect those who seek to expose wrong doing by their unions. Once again, I can easily cite cases. In May 1984, four members of SOGAT wrote to their union's general secretary-elect alleging serious financial and administrative irregularities at their local branch. They were told to make their complaints through the usual channels. Their correspondence was forwarded to their branch secretary, despite the fact that he was the subject of their allegations. An investigation was held at branch level, which resulted in two of those members being immediately demoted and, subsequently, all four were dismissed.
Despite an appeal and considerable local support, including a petition with more than 2,000 signatures, the national executive committee confirmed the dismissals. At least one of the members involved had been a trade unionist for 30 years. The clause does, indeed, go beyond strike action and is intended to meet the case that I have just cited.
Throughout the Committee stage Opposition Members consistently said that a member who found himself in such circumstances should leave the union—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, certainly that was one of the arguments deployed in Committee. It is a surprising argument that union members who find themselves just once in disagreement with their unions should voluntarily

withdraw. Even if unions could withstand such a voluntary outflow, it would not justify forcibly expelling members who disagreed with them. That would leave the union movement manned either by yes men or by those too scared to stand up for their views.
We would all agree that the small minority of members who consistently find themselves opposed to the majority view have no long-term future in their unions. However, it is strange to argue that a union should make an issue of every disagreement, even when an individual member has a long history of loyal and active service to the union. Nevertheless, that has been the thrust of the cases that I have cited.

Mr. Allen: The right hon. Gentleman said that in Committee the Opposition said that union members had the option to leave their unions, and that they should do that. To my knowledge, no one said that—other than Conservative Members who tried to claim that we had said it, which we consistently denied. Will the Minister now correct himself?

Mr. Fowler: I shall not correct myself, but rather I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister to quote the relevant lines from Hansard when he replies to the debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will then realise that his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who led the Opposition in Committee, adduced precisely that argument.
It cannot be right for participation in industrial action to be an obligation enforceable by a union. Some unions resolve not to strike, and many do not strike. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned international comparisons, but in many—probably most—countries, unions operate quite effectively without forcing their members to strike.

Mr. Ron Leighton: This is an important point. Do the Government think that unions should be coherent and disciplined bodies? Let us consider the current dispute of the National Union of Seamen. Mr. McCluskie has given certain undertakings to the court. The judge said something like, "You must ensure that those undertakings are carried out, because if you do not, when you come back to court on Tuesday, watch out". The judge was telling Mr. McCluskie to exercise discipline in his union. He told him to get his men back to work, or the whole might of the judiciary would fall upon him and the union's funds would be sequestrated. The judge was effectively saying, "There must be discipline in your union or else."
What do the Government want? Do they want the unions to be coherent and disciplined, or are they saying, "It doesn't matter — whatever the vote, do what you like"? The union official may say one thing, but the members can do something else. Do the Government want coherence and discipline or do they want laissez-faire?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question. I will not discuss the detail of the NUS case because it is still before the court—[Interruption.] Now hang on, just hang on. The case is before the court, because, for example, one point at issue is that there was no secret ballot. When the hon. Gentleman talks about discipline, he should also deal with the problem of unions


not seeking to meet the conditions laid down in law. For him to talk about discipline in that light is somewhat fanciful.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that unions are coherent and important organisations. Indeed, throughout our long debates we have maintained that to compare trade unions with social or golf clubs is nonsensical. Trade unions are powerful institutions which have a powerful impact and effect on the working lives of their members. That is why the clause is justified. In the end, it comes down to a fundamental issue of belief. As our manifesto made clear, we place the highest priority on the freedom of the individual to decide for himself.
Opposition Members have said more than once that a ballot before industrial action resolves the conflict of loyalities and obligations that individuals may face. The Government reject the proposition that when the majority put their pay claim above the survival of a firm, the interests of patients or the welfare of families, the individual member is obliged to do the same. Trade union members are free adults and we intend that they be treated as such.
The Bill fulfils our promises and extends the freedom of the individual. That is why we reject the proposition of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East.

Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) opened his remarks by saying that he thought that the Secretary of State was going to withdraw this part of the Bill. My right hon. Friend has a far more optimistic view of human nature than I have. The Secretary of State may not believe in this measure, but he knows that he is a member of a Cabinet dominated by someone who is a malicious opponent of trade unionism. If we wanted any evidence of that, we have only to consider the case of GCHQ to see how the Government took away the democratic rights of people working there to belong to a trade union. That illustrates only too well what the Government would like to see elsewhere, but, fortunately, they have not had the courage to put forward such proposals.
This part of the Bill is very offensive. It is intended to do away with the right of a trade union to take any kind of disciplinary action when an industrial dispute has occurred and where a ballot has decided that such a dispute should take place. To justify this, the Secretary of State gave us an example in which a dispute had been going on for a few weeks, or a couple of months, and the executive had decided to keep that dispute going. The workers, the trade union members, decided to go back and vote with their feet. However, the Secretary of State's example did not deal with the case which my hon. Friends have developed and with which I want to deal, where there is no dispute to start with, a ballot takes place, there is a clear majority in favour of industrial action and a dispute then begins. Is the Secretary of State telling the House that, in that situation, the union has no responsibility and no role to play in taking action against those who decide to work, regardless of the ballot?
That is why Opposition Members consider this measure to be so offensive. It is difficult to imagine any professional organisation, whether of lawyers or solicitors, not having some kind of disciplinary code. Every professional organisation has some kind of code to protect itself and its membership. Why should trade unions be denied this basic right?
We can only conclude that the Government have a malicious intent against trade unions. They say that they do not like strikes, but industrial disputes occur. One of the differences between a dictatorship and a free society is that in the latter working people can take strike action. As we know, people do not take strike action lightly They do so after they have concluded that there is no other way of settling matters. As a democrat and someone who believes in the right of working people to take such action, I believe that it is far better that working people can do this in a free society rather than have to live under a dictatorship, whether Communist or not.
I am a national officer of my trade union. At a recent meeting of my executive we had to decide what action should be taken against a few members who decided to go into work when, after a ballot, there had been a majority vote for industrial action. My union does not need any lectures from the Government about ballots. We have taken the view that members should be balloted before industrial action takes place. This is how the union decided to proceed democratically at its annual policy-making conference long before I became involved. The executive council did not initiate the action against those who happened to work during that industrial dispute. It arose because those taking industrial action, and as a result won their case, felt very bitterly towards the few individuals who worked. They wrote to the official, who wrote to the executive council, requesting that action be taken.
The Secretary of State said today that the executive of my union should have no role to play in such cases. I find that very difficult to understand or to justify. I also take the view that, if this measure remains in the Bill, it will undoubtedly cause immense bitterness in the work force.
I can visualise a situation in which an industrial dispute has taken place and ended. When the large majority of people who have not worked during the dispute return, they will feel very bitter towards those who have worked. They will feel even more bitter if, as a result of strike action, they have won the point, whether it concerns conditions or pay.
Whether we are discussing the Ford dispute, or any other dispute in the future, no legislation can take away the feeling of bitterness and hostility that undoubtedly arises when a strike has ended and the people concerned decide that some action should be taken against those who blacklegged during the strike. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that there should be such a feeling of opposition and hostility to these proposals.
Despite the Secretary of State's comments about the rights of working people, when the Governments took office nine years ago they decided that they would do what they could, by legislation, to undermine the rights of trade unions. As in the case of GCHQ, they took away the right of people to belong to a trade union — something unheard of in a democracy. Although the Government would like to take such action in the public services, for example, they have decided not to do so, at least for the moment. They have undoubtedly undermined and eroded the rights of the trade unions. Whatever success the Government may have as a result of their majority in the House, when a different Administration come into office, all these offensive powers and obnoxious actions that have been taken against trade unions will be removed.
When I was away from the House during the 1970s, I well remember being told that the changes brought in at that time by the Government led by the right hon. Member


for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would be permanent features on the statute book. We were told that no future Government would ever change that. Yet what happened? When my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent became Secretary of State for Employment, it all changed. I assure the Secretary of State that, however much Conservative Members may state that Conservative legislation will remain a permanent feature on the statute book, it will change.
Whenever action has been taken against trade unions, not only in the 1970s, but many years before the beginning of this century, the trade unions have won the point. They will do so again. The right of working people to belong to trade unions and of those unions to regulate their affairs without undue state interference will remain. People will not be denied the right to take action against those who have defied the majority in a ballot. If the Bill is enacted, that right will be taken away. I look forward to the day when there will be a different Government and different legislation will be proposed.

Mrs. Llin Golding: These clauses have been drafted by interferers who know little about trade unions and care little about democracy. They have been drafted by people who wish to interfere in the running of trade unions, when it makes sense to anyone who knows anything about unions that the rules governing members of trade unions should be left to the union members.
Why should trade unions have such laws imposed upon them by the Tory Government? Do the Goverment have any proposals to bring in laws to control the professions? In which professions is the right to expel controlled by laws such as are proposed in the Bill? Is that right controlled in the medical profession, the legal profession or in the City? The Government's answer to controlling fraud in the City has not been the type of control and restriction that will be imposed by the Bill. Did they bring in a Bill to introduce rules and regulations to control the stock exchange? No, they did not. They produced the Criminal Justice Bill to prosecute those who carry out illegal practices, not to prevent them.
8.30 pm
The Government say that unions are too powerful. What about the stock exchange? It has enormous powers, but it is not controlled in such a way. We do not need to ask why it is not to be controlled. What about political parties' powers? The Tory party is not prevented by law from expelling people. Its members are not controlled by such laws. Yet the Tory party has enormous powers. Its members are allowed to decide what to do with regard to internal discipline. How can anyone run an organisation without its members having the democratic right to decide rules governing membership?
The clauses will not give the Government what they want. If members do not have to face up to the problems and the sacrifices that they will have to make if they vote for a strike, are they not more likely to vote to strike or even to abstain? Whichever way they vote, they will not have to take responsibility for their actions. They can vote to strike and then go to work. How does that make any sense to anyone? What use is that to an employer? It can be an embarrassment to the employer if a few members return to work after a ballot for a strike.
Recent strikes have destroyed the myth that trade union officers cause strikes. It is the members who decide to strike when they do not like what is on offer. If a union cannot control discipline, its members will take the law into their own hands.
Does the Minister not recognise the bitterness that is felt by union members who democratically strike and, after weeks of sacrifice, go back to work and see other union members who have not gone on strike but who have picked up money and enjoyed improved conditions? Where is the democracy and fairness in that?
If members are told that the results of ballots do not count, those who do not want to return to work will use that argument, and a return to work will be jeopardised. Union members should be disciplined by the rules and procedures of their unions. Such rules and regulations should be democratically decided within a union. Union members should not be disciplined by unjust and unnecessary laws. The Government should accept that fact and withdraw the clauses.

Mr. Allen: The amendment has a far wider significance than its effect merely on the Employment Bill. Without overstating the case one iota, we are seeing a fundamental attack upon democracy. A central tenet of our democracy has always been that, whatever one's own view, if a majority freely accept a certain course of action, we should all follow such a course. In all parties throughout all societies, that has been a fundamental rule of democracy. [Interruption.] As Conservative Members say from a sedentary position, it may not apply to the Conservative party or particularly to the Cabinet, but, none the less, the matter overrides even the petty party politics of the Conservative party.

Rev. William McCrae: The hon. Gentleman's argument seems strange. He is in support of a majority view, irrespective of whether one agrees with it. Hon. Members from Ulster have been pleading with the House to do that for a long time, yet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have always voted against it. That is sheer hypocrisy.

Mr. Allen: I am grateful for that intervention. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his own contribution a little later.
The clause represents the lowest water-mark of democracy in the eight years of the Government. Short of the abolition of elections, I fail to see how much further they could possibly sink.
The Secretary of State referred to two key ways in which the amendment can be justified. His first point was that it appeared in the Conservative party's manifesto. I corrected him at the time, and I correct him again. The proposal which was referred to in the Conservative party manifesto applied only to situations in which strikes take place. It did not refer to the wide-ranging extension to industrial action as a whole which, on occasions, can amount to trivial matters rather than major industrial disputes and strikes to which the Conservative party manifesto alluded. I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me for correcting him about the contents of his party's manifesto, which I would have thought that he would know better than I do.
The second major plank of the Secretary of State's approach related to consultations. I am glad that the Secretary of State raised the matter. He will have a hard


job to find more than a handful of organisations, secret societies or individuals who have come out above the parapet to support the clauses. On the contrary, if we weigh the evidence, we shall find masses of organisations — some peculiar, some hardly about to bring in the Socialist millenium — such as the Freedom Association and other organisations that have consistently supported our view about various clauses in the Bill, and clause 3 in particular.
This has quite rightly been dubbed the scabs' charter because of its basic anti-democratic nature and the way in which it has been put forward in Committee and the House. I am sure you will correct me if I stray from the topic, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the names of those Conservative Members who voted for the clause, without even listening to the debate and without even being present for much of the debate, will live on the record for a long time. They have voted away a fundamental tenet of our social democracy—with a small "S" and a small "D", I hasten to add—and our trade union democracy. The people will bear a heavy burden.
Another aspect that surprised me, particularly as a new hon. Member, was the Government's reluctance even to entertain the arguments. As someone who had watched the proceedings of the House from outside, I assumed that, in Committee, the Government would not, of course, accept major fundamental changes to their Bill but would listen to arguments and would change aspects of the Bill in regard to which serious problems were pointed out by the Opposition. Not in the least. Above all, the clause demonstrates the way in which the steamroller pushed the Bill through Committee. It is a poor day for us. The attack on the fundamental principle of democracy was well summed up by the TUC in its guide to the Employment Bill. It states:
When people are part of a voluntary association like unions there must be an obligation on them to accept and act on majority decisions.
Clause 3 institutes the contracting-out of democracy. That is novel and not to be welcomed.
Above all, we shall see that the clause, as well as being philosophically anti-democratic, produces many significant local effects. We shall see a breakdown in local industrial relations of the sort that gave rise to Donovan and others back in the 1960s. An employer can pay a strike-breaker and that strike-breaker cannot be disciplined, whatever action he may take against his colleagues at work. That is an absolute incitement to certain of the new brave wave of entrepreneurs created by the Government to break the law as well as breaking a few skulls along the way.
Another thing that emerged in Committee was that the Government are not in touch. They lack connection with the way in which the shop floor really works. A number of my hon. Friends attempted to bring Conservative Members back into touch with industrial relations as they are really practised. I shall quote again from industrial officers of the major trade unions. In Committee, I quoted from Mr. Keith Moore, an officer of GMB. He is by no means a revolutionary. He wants to get his work done. He goes to work every day and spends most of his time settling disputes. He does not really live up to the mythical picture that the Government paint of a man who spends 90 per cent. of his time creating disputes and discord. He said:
Basically, I believe that this Bill will be a charter for anarchy as far as industrial relations are concerned and many employers must indeed be wringing their hands in despair at

what is being proposed. In the main, there has been discipline within the trade union ranks in industry. This Bill will destroy such discipline. It's ridiculous and defies democracy that, where there's been a ballot for industrial action and the majority of those participating have voted in favour then to give the people in the minority the legal right to protection is ludicrous and does nothing for industrial relations.
That is the voice of someone who deals with industrial relations every single day of his working life. However, the Government would not listen to that or to other arguments advanced by Opposition Members.
The Bill goes even further than that. We have heard about the sanctity of the contract with an employer. What about the contract with the trade union, which has been freely entered into? The Bill overrides that contract. As well as re-writing the rule books of trade unions, the Bill overrides the contract of association that trade unions have with their members. It is overridden not just by another contract but by something of a lesser status—an agreement. As we discovered when we pressed the Government on this in Committee, an agreement need not even be what we term a binding agreement. It may be something that two people reach over a drink in the pub. That shows how serious the change is.
The Government have allegedly fought hard to introduce secret ballots where they did not exist before. However, unfortunately it seems that the clause throws away the idea of secret ballots on the ground of political expediency. The Government are not only moving the goal posts; they are starting to play a different game.
8.45 pm
The Secretary of State referred to all the cases of people who have been disciplined. In Committee, we tried hard to get the cases listed. We left it for a week and came back after the weekend and asked, "Where are the cases?" At least the Minister has come up with a case tonight and I would celebrate that with my hon. Friends. We have got the case, lads. We have done it. It has taken us three months, but we should be very grateful that the Secretary of State has come up with one case. All the thousands of cases, of which we have been able to find only one, are intended to replace and undermine the current disciplinary procedures of trade unions. It is important to place on record what those disciplinary procedures are.
In modern trade unionism, discipline and expulsion are governed by the rule book. They do not drop out of thin air or arise from an Act suddenly appearing on the statute book. They are worked at, honed and polished within the trade union's rules. Year by year in annual conferences, and month by month at meetings of union executives, those rules are polished to meet the members' needs. If Conservative Members feel that that is not enough, there is always recourse to natural justice and law. The rules always state the penalties to be applied, although under the Bill the right to appeal has been changed so that members will have only six months to submit their appeal in certain cases. Trade union members have recourse through their own organisations. As many of my hon. Friends and I said in Committee, we do not need lectures on democracy from a Government whose predecessors denied the vote to working people for 100 years. We are only now celebrating the 70th anniversary of women over 30 having the vote. The Government are not in a strong position to start lecturing the labour movement on who should have the vote, when and how.
There are clear motives behind the Bill, which has little to do with improving industrial relations. One obvious


motive is to try to confuse and muddy the legal processes so that all members of trade unions feel insecure. They will always feel that a legal threat may be brought down upon their heads. The Government have fundamentally misunderstood the situation if they believe that such a threat will fatally undermine the trade union movement. Conservative Members do not understand how trade unions work. Conservative Members' view is based on individual rights—many of which they freely enjoy—as opposed to collective rights, which are the fundamental pillars of supporting trade unionism.
The Bill is not about the average trade unionist. It is not about the person who needs to organise to protect himself at work, to improve his conditions and wages and to make a better life for himself and his family. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 are about one thing alone. They are intended to assist that small minority of trade unionists—0·1 per cent. or 0·01 per cent.—who wish to take action—often vexatious action — against their trade union. It is not about the 99·9 per cent. of trade unionists who work within their trade union and develop it. It is merely for those who would thwart the democratic wish of their colleagues and organise a return to work which would otherwise be unlikely. The Bill substitutes the rule of the very small minority for the genuinely agreed democratic decision reached after a secret ballot.
In Committee, we had a long argument about the contract between employer and employee and the contract between a trade union member and his trade union. That argument needs to be aired again. When there is a conflict between the contracts, it can be resolved under the trade union's own rules, through the process of a ballot. The reconciliation that takes place at a ballot means that there is legitimacy in sinking the differences that existed prior to the ballot. Everyone then becomes united behind that ballot. I hope that my hon. Friends will take that argument up tonight.
Another case mentioned in Committee related to the National Union of Railwaymen. I know that some of my hon. Friends want to refer to it later. All that I would say is that it raised a great problem involving, according to the Green Paper, 120,000 railwaymen. As I understand it, a magnification of 10 times occurred in that Green Paper. It was, of course, a minor error that put just another 100,000 railwaymen into the equation. However, we should not let the facts get in the way of a good story and it certainly did not inhibit Conservative Members in Committee.
Another aspect that needs to be touched on is the question of intimidation. We are told of many people who have been intimidated to return to work and to do this, that and the other by the trade unions. However, the real intimidation and the coercion in our society is practised not by the unions on their members, but by capital on individual trade unionists and their families, and on individual trade unions. People are put into a position such that they cannot exercise the rights that they have at present because of fear that they and their families will suffer. As an active trade unionist such a person may be sacked and have next to no chance of getting his job back and being reinstated. Time and time again in Committee, the Government were pressed to include provisions in the

Bill that would bring into force some sort of justice for reinstatement at industrial tribunals. Of course, that was quickly passed over.
The other myth that was blown around in Committee was the sacrosanct nature of the ballot—the jewel in the trade union reform crown that has been put forward by this Conservative Government. Although we need no lectures from Conservative Members, the Conservative party would do well to look to itself before starting to tell other people how to conduct their affairs in view of the lack of democracy in that party.
The great problem about ballots for the Government is that ballots were the be-all and end-all which would allegedly give the trade unions back to their members. However, with the ballots the trade unions and trade unionists have defeated the Government. I give just one example of the political fund ballots. Forty trade unions held compulsory national ballots and 40 separate national ballots each recorded a victory for the trade union concerned and its members in retaining the political funds. Indeed, another seven or eight trade unions have now established political funds.
It may well be that the Government's reason for undermining that concept of democracy is because it simply has not delivered for the Government. In their ruthless way, if something has not delivered they chuck it out and try something else. If the Government cannot get a majority they say, "Let us break it down even further and wheedle away at the trade unions through individuals." They do so through a few dissident members and through a few people funded by the likes of David Hart and the Freedom Association. That is another way in which the Government attack the trade union movement.
The more law, routine and regulation that exists, the more we get what my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) referred to as "the Gulliver syndrome". Every little rope may not be as much in itself but it is "salami tactics" under another name. However, it may well tie down the sleeping giant. In my view, the rope that they have tied on this occasion has been tied round a vital organ of Gulliver and the tears will come to the eyes of the trade union movement, but that does not mean that the sleeping giant cannot rise.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend comment briefly on the fact that the Government always seem to be opposed to more legislation when it comes to, say, small businesses, but are prepared to heap it on the trade unions? That is a curious set of double standards.

Mr. Allen: I would need at least another 20 years in this place before I could find the oratorical brilliance even to answer my hon. Friend's clear question, but perhaps the Secretary of State will pick up that point with his usual aplomb.
Another aspect that needs to be brought out is the support that there has been for this "abolition of democracy" clause within the trade union movement. Some peculiar people with whom, perhaps, I would not have associated the word "democracy" have attempted to pressure the Government to see sense on this issue and to get them to ditch their dogma in favour of something more workable. I said earlier that I would quote another trade union officer and I should add that I do not include Fred Childs who works for the GMB in Hull in that description


of "peculiar". He is a man who could hardly be described as a militant Socialist. He earns his daily bread at the coal face of industrial relations. He wrote to me, stating:
Individual strike breakers given the right of protection if they disobey a democratic decision of the members after a secret ballot makes a complete mockery of the need to hold such a ballot.
He underlined the word "need", and continued:
It will lead to even worse industrial relations on the shop floor and I can see an increase in unofficial industrial action taking place.
Those are similar terms to the words I quoted earlier from one of his colleagues. From their independent and different geographical standpoints, both can see the effect of the legislation. Those men are mainstream, sensible practitioners of industrial relations.
However, some weird people support the case against the clause, notably David Shiels, the vice-chairman of the Conservative Trade Unionists. I do not know how many votes he received; he might have won by a considerable margin. It was probably three votes to one or something like that. However, the best of luck to him because he had a nice job as vice-chairman of the CTU. He has said that if the Government made trade unions alone among voluntary bodies incapable of disciplining their members, they would look "decidedly silly". It may be too late to prevent the Government looking silly on this issue. However, I hope that even they will listen to their cohorts in the Conservative Trade Unionists, if they will not listen to anyone else.
Another surprising ally in this came in Mr. Murdoch's latest edition of The Sunday Times, which made its position clear in an editorial. I shall wash my mouth out with soap and water after quoting from it. It stated:
We are also unimpressed with the government's case for legislation to prohibit trade unions from taking disciplinary action against members who refuse to abide by the majority decision in a secret ballot. Minority groups of union members must never be denied the right to cross the picket lines in defiance of a majority strike decision; that is their choice, and they should be free to do so. But they must be prepared to take the consequences so far as their union membership is concerned, either by being fined or expelled. We cannot have democracy 'up to a point' in the workplace. Mr. Norman Fowler's new employment bill will insist on secret ballots, which is right. It must also respect the right of unions to act in defence of those ballots. To argue otherwise is perverse and self-defeating.
That is the successor to Labour Weekly, The Sunday Times.
9 pm
I will finish my list of quotations with another great socialist radical of the generation, Peregrine Worsthorne. He said that the Government will be wrong-footed
if it presses on with the clause in its new Employment Bill which stops unions expelling members who blackleg even if after a ballot has found in favour of a strike. In the old days trade unions had too much power over their members, and were free to act like tyrants. But if the Government's new bill goes through, they will have been emasculated. Of course, it was right to liberate trade union members from the obligation to strike when no ballot had been called. But to liberate them from that obligation even when a ballot has been called is plainly wrong and will be seen to be wrong by all but bigots.
That was Peregrine Worsthorne. I would hardly choose him as one of the most ardent supporters of Opposition Members or necessarily of the concept of democracy.
My final point relates to the way in which the clause would affect not merely those who were previous targets such as senior trade unionists, general secretaries and national officers. It could unwittingly affect ordinary

members of trade unions. I refer in particular to clause 3 in which no discipline is allowed for those who are involved in mischievous actions.
A member can actually put forward that another member was "proposing to contravene" the rules of the union — not "contravening" the rules, but simply proposing to do so. That charge could be made against an officer of the union, or against an ordinary member of that trade union. In other words, the clause will apply to the volunteer, the person on whom the trade union movement was built. The trades union movement is not Ron Todd, John Edmonds or Rodney Bickerstaffe; it is the individual members, the people who have of their own volition put time aside without pay to make the union work, to defend their colleagues at work and to develop a sense of solidarity and to confront the management which often has the power to reduce the earning ability of those individuals and make life hard for them. Those volunteers will suffer, not the trade union officers or the full-time trade union officials. I would not wish such sanctions to apply to trade union officers and full-time officials. None the less, if they have to be applied, it is better than they should be applied to them rather than purely to the volunteers.
The provisions will be able to apply to individual trade union members and volunteers whose connection with the trade unions may be tenuous. It may be that Charlie joins the trade union and after a couple of weeks, because he seems to be keen, he is pushed forward and made a representative because nobody else wants the job. He is a young lad who wants to get on in the trade union, so they put him up in the firing line. He knows nothing about the way it may work or about the consequences of possible action taken against him. Such people may he shop stewards, branch secretaries or branch officers, they may only make up the numbers on a local committee, but they will be hit by the full force of clause 3(3)(c) as if they were general secretaries wth 40 years' experience in the movement. That is not the way we should go about things.
The crime can often be no more than "proposing to contravene the rules"—not actually contravening them. I would be very surprised if all hon. Members here tonight have not proposed contravening a number of issues in the Tea Room or the Corridor. People could be chatting over a cup of tea in the works canteen, and say that they would like to do something to someone. As I said in Committee, that would certainly apply to those Conservative Members who say that they would like to get their hands around the neck of the Prime Minister. That is where it should rest.

Mr. Clelland: Round the Prime Minister's neck?

Mr. Allen: Yes, most appropriately.
Finally—

Mr. Frank Cook: Do hon. Gentlemen want to intervene?

Mr. Allen: I ask my hon. Friend not to encourage hon. Members to intervene. For three months in Committee they had great difficulty in standing up and I should hate a maiden speech to be made on the Floor of the House. If Conservative Members wish to intervene, I should be more than happy to give way. In Committee the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was present for only one speech, but it lasted longer than the sum total of Back Bench speeches from Conservative Members.
The Law Society has made its view on this clause clear. It stated:
we are concerned that serious problems of evidence may arise on either or both sides in any dispute. We particularly have this in mind in clause 3(3)(c).
It is appropriate for the Law Society to point that out to Conservative Members.
Of all the clauses this one has the most fundamental effect on our democracy. It robs democracy of the idea that a decision by the majority after a proper series of discussions and a secret ballot should be adhered to. This is a charter for those who wish to break the trade union movement, for those who lose in ballots and employers who will not abide by democratically agreed decisions. I hope that the House will vote against it tonight and that throughout the country it will be exposed for its fundamental attack on our democracy.

Mr. Heffer: These three clauses are nothing but the essence of a scabs' charter. Those of us who have spent our lives in the trade union movement know that workers do not go on strike at the drop of a hat, but think long and hard about it. They have lengthy debates and discussions, and even when they go on strike they are unhappy because they lose money, find tensions developing in their families and experience all sorts of pressures.
The Government's idea that workers are always willing to walk out at any moment so legislation is needed to prevent that is wrong. That was the basis of their argument for legislation. They said, "We must stop the growth of unofficial disputes. Before a strike there must be a secret ballot in which all workers vote. Then we shall find that the mass of workers will not want to go on strike."

Mr. Skinner: Has my hon. Friend ever considered during our debates on industrial relations and employment matters the double standard on secret ballots? At the end of this debate we shall vote in what I call the Longbridge fashion. One lot will go into one side and the other into the other — the Aye side and the No side. Instead of having shop stewards on the doorways, we have Government Whips and Opposition Whips. There is no secret ballot for Members of Parliament in this House or the other place. We have strong-arm men and a few women twisting our arms. Hon. Members ask, "Where shall we vote?" and the Whips say, "Vote in that Lobby." Imagine if some Tory Member decided to baulk the Whips tonight and the House applied clauses 3 to 5 to them, all hell would be let loose.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not think that anybody could put it better or more succinctly.
The reason why the Government do not want a Longbridge vote for the ordinary worker on the shop floor is that they have the nonsensical idea that if only workers had a secret ballot, the majority of them would never vote for strike action. Of course, they have been proved wrong, not once, but on a number of occasions. At the present time they have been proved wrong by the vote at Ford. The workers had a secret ballot and decided, by an overwhelming majority, that they were prepared to go on strike. There have also been secret ballots by other sections of workers that have proved the Government wrong. As a result, the Government have been forced to say, "It is not working. It is going to our disadvantage because, by majority, the workers have said that they are going to

make a stand. Therefore, we will change the rules again." When the Government get into difficulty about any issue they constantly move the goalposts and change the rules. Now the Government believe that they must defend the rights of those who do not want to go on strike or who are prepared to break a picket line.
The Government have said that if a union takes action under its rules to discipline members who have failed to take strike action, perhaps by imposing a mild fine, those members should be compensated. Listening to some Conservative Members one would imagine that such strike-breaking members are hung, drawn and quartered. Unions do nothing of the kind and, in my opinion, they are sometimes too gentle with people who break the rules. Conservative Members have double standards.
The working people's fight for better conditions, better wages, reduction in hours, decent holidays and so on has been hard and bitter. All the workers' achievements have been got by that struggle. I worked in the shipyards and on construction sites and I never met one employer who came along and said, "Don't worry. Don't do anything and don't have a mass meeting. Don't think in terms of strike action because next week, lads, as we have made so much profit, we are going to give you another shilling an hour, reduce your working hours, give you longer holidays and more days off with more pay." Workers have had to say to their employers, "If you do not do something to improve our conditions we will use the only right we have and refuse to work for you until you do." That is a fundamental right of working people and, step by step, the Government are taking that right away.
The Government would like to outlaw strikes altogether. They cannot do that at the moment — no doubt one day they will. In the meantime, the Government are seeking to make it as difficult as possible for the trade unions. The Government are faced with the situation where workers have, by an overwhelming majority, taken a decision for strike action. That is not in line with what the Government want, so they are now seeking to bring in legislation that will protect those who are prepared to go to work and to cross the picket lines. It is not just a question of police on the gates, because the Government are now seeking to take further action, even though there has been a secret ballot, to protect those people who scab. If the union takes action against them, there will be compensation for those workers. That is the scabs' charter. The Government are trying to defend people who would undermine the basis of the trade union movement.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has been a little too fair to the Government. This legislation will allow scabs to operate. It is about the fourth or fifth step that the Government have taken, but the serious step that they want to take has been outlined in the Carlton club document, which states, in relation to the National Health Service, that the Government want to get rid of all trade unions. They want to have a gigantic Royal College of Nursing across the entire trade union movement. They could have 22 Trevor Clays running each trade union. They want no strikes, and the Bill is just another step along that road.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is right. From the day they came to office, in employment legislation—that is a misnomer for a start—the Government have taken steps


to make the position of workers far worse even than that caused by the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which was introduced by the Administration of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It was positively mild compared with what this Government have done.
There are not many Conservative Members present in the Chamber, but I pose this question to them: are they willing to accept the ending of democratic practices in the trade union movement? It is only one step away from ending all democratic practices in the country. The Government start by attacking the trade unions, but they will move into other sections of the community and eventually they will say, "We had better not have elections, secret or otherwise, because they are dangerous and they might put in a Government we do not want." I ask Conservative Members who have been or are members of trade unions—

Mr. Leighton: How many are there?

Mr. Heffer: There are one or two. Do they agree with this further attack on the democratic rights of trade unionists and ordinary people?
This is a mockery of what the Government argued. How can they say that it is essential to have a secret ballot and, when the secret ballot goes against them, defend those who want to break the decision of the majority? They are being two-faced. The workers' struggle has been a sort of warfare for better conditions. Sometimes the country has to fight wars, and members of the armed forces who scab in time of war or who run away are disciplined. They must be. One cannot turn and flee in the face of the enemy. But Conservative Members are saying that trade unionists who are engaged in warfare for better conditions, or to defend their conditions, may defect from the ranks—and that is all right with them. The Government say that that is fine; they support such union members and urge them to defect.
I ask hon. Members to support the amendment, which would delete clauses 3, 4 and 5. That is essential, and if the House does not go along with us, it will be a further sign of the continuing movement towards authoritarian Government in this country.

Mr. Clelland: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. North (Mr. Allen) referred — it seems a long time ago now—to the Donovan report, the Royal Commission on trade unions and employers' associations which met between 1965 and 1968. I have a copy here. It may look a little dog-eared, but that is not because I have just taken it from the dusty shelves of the Library. I bought it when I was a shop steward in 1968. It is probably the most in-depth study of trade unions and employers' associations ever done. It took a
considerable volume of written evidence … from Government Departments, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, numerous trade unions and employers' associations, companies, nationalised industries, organisations connected with industrial relations, individuals having specialist knowledge of the subject, and members of the public. In all some 430 organisations, persons or groups of persons sent us written submissions.
The commission sat on 58 days for the purpose of taking oral evidence. It conducted
interviews on the basis of a series of questionnaires with some 1,400 shop stewards, 200 full-time trade union officers, 500 workers belonging to trade unions, 400 non-union workers, 600 foremen, 300 works managers and 120 personnel officers.

The commission also conducted research into many other subjects. There were a number of visits to industrial establishments, and the views of management and shop stewards were taken.
Members also attended as observers a number of meetings of national joint negotiating bodies, including a Wages Council,
and paid visits to Sweden, which I understand the Secretary of State recently visited, and the Federal Republic of Germany.
So a considerable amount of work was done by the Royal Commission, but it all seems to have fallen on deaf ears, to judge from this Bill, which goes against everything recommended in the report. In particular, clauses 3, 4 and 5 go against what the commission said. The Government pursue the myth that trade union members are some sort of sheep, which is an insult to many men and women who are members of trade unions. The Government think that those members are sheep being herded along by militant trade union officers for their own ends, despite what is happening with the National Union of Seamen, at Ford and in the National Health Service. In the face of all that, the Government still believe they cannot be wrong.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) asked the Secretary of State a question, which he failed to answer, about how clause 3 would affect a dispute such as the one at Ford. The Secretary of State has gone off for dinner now, and is doubtless enjoying brandy and cigars, so perhaps the Minister will reply to the question in his absence. How does the Minister imagine the clause would affect industrial relations in these work places especially in the Ford dispute? Does he not realise the bitterness that would be fuelled if, following a substantial majority in a balllot, some individuals decided to ignore the decision and go to work, no doubt escorted by the police under the powers given them by other legislation such as this? If Ministers cannot see that bitterness and recrimination on an immense scale would follow, they are divorced from reality and are ignoring the lessons of the past.
At present, the ability of unions to impose some sort of disciplinary action on those who ignore majority decisions is at least a way of stemming such a bitter reaction and taking the steam out of the situation. Following a dispute of that nature, the shop steward would smooth over the trouble. I have experienced that on many occasions. I have told members "Let us calm feelings. The union has invoked disciplinary procedures, and at the end of the day the matter will be resolved." The member would be called upon to explain his action and the others would be assured that some form of discipline could and would be initiated. Such a procedure can take the heat out of things and sometimes violent incidents can be avoided.
If that safety valve is removed, which is what is proposed in clauses 3 to 5, the Government will blow the lid off everything that has been done to promote good industrial relations over many years. As we have heard, no organisation of any note in industrial relations has a good word for the clauses. Anyone with any knowledge, and certainly any experience, of industrial relations knows the disastrous consequences of such a proposal and what will follow.
What is the proposal about? The Government have alleged that it is about reducing the number of working days lost through strikes — or so it seems from the Secretary of State's remarks. Apparently, the right hon.


Gentleman regards the Government's record on working days lost through strikes as good. The point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that, like the unemployment figures, the figures for days lost through strikes have also been fiddled and no one can tell what the position is.
However, if days lost is the important aspect of industrial relations that the Government wish to address, they are responsible for far more days being lost through unemployment than under any other Government in history. Some 1 billion working days per year are lost as a result of unemployment. The Government have presided over many more days being lost through sickness and accidents at work than have ever been lost through strikes, yet what do they do about that? They have reduced the capacity of the safety inspectorate to deal with unsafe practices at work. Worst of all, they have deliberately and calculatedly tightened their icy grip around the National Health Service so that it has reached the crisis point that we are now witnessing. The Government are not interested in the number of days lost through strikes; they are interested in anarchy because they stupidly believe that the proposal will cripple the trade unions.
The Secretary of State said that the proposal is about essential freedoms, such as the essential freedom for people to go to work, regardless of a democratic decision to strike, in which he or she has freely participated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, that essential freedom extends to all industrial action, whether it is an overtime ban or a work to rule. In a democratic society, complete freedom for every individual is a myth — it is impossible. We run our affairs through collective decision-making. Indeed, as we shall see again soon, the House runs on that very principle. The Government's supporters will troop through the Lobby to vote this squalid measure on to the statute book. That will be an act of the utmost hypocrisy, in that a decision taken in the House to encourage individuals to ignore a democratic majority decision will itself be taken by a majority vote in the House.
How can any reasonable person who supports this country's democratic traditions, and who supports the House of Commons and its democratic traditions, have any respect for a Government who use that very system to undermine democratic accountability in the work place? A Government who think that they can introduce such a measure and retain respect are doomed to die from an overdose of their own arrogance.

Mr. Leighton: I did not intend to participate in the debate, as I was not a member of the Committee but I was provoked by the Secretary of State. Out of courtesy one comes to listen to the Secretary of State and, although I am mild-mannered, I was provoked into making a brief intervention.
In introducing this fourth piece of legislation on industrial relations the Government have gone a Bill too far. In clause 3 they have gone a clause too far. I do not know of anyone who favours the clause. Can Conservative Members tell me of any reputable body of opinion or of any reputable organisation that is in favour of clause 3? I am anxious to give way to any hon. Member who can tell me of anyone who is in favour of the clause.

Mr. David Blunkett: The Economic League, I think.

Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend is guessing. He is normally expert on these matters.
Does any hon. Member know of anyone who is in favour of the clause? Are there any Conservative trade unionists who are in favour of it? Does the smiling Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), or the other Whip, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), know of anyone who is in favour of the clause?

Mr. Andrew Rowe: It would be a serious denial of the position of the listening party if Conservative Members were to pre-empt the many currents of opinion that are flowing from that well-known listening party.

Mr. Leighton: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), for whom I have great admiration, makes a brave effort. I am wondering how convincing he is, but I applaud him for trying to smooth over the fact that nobody is in favour of the clause, except, apparently, Ministers on the Front Bench.
The clause is misguided, because it undermines ballots. We in the Labour party are in favour of ballots. The trade union movement is in favour of ballots; it lives by ballots. Unlike parliamentarians, who have ballots once every five years, trade unionists have ballots every day on myriad issues.
Before I entered the House I was an active member of a trade union, in which I occupied a modest elected position. I was elected, as were all my colleagues in what we called the chapels, once every quarter. I and other officials had to be re-elected by a secret workplace ballot — not a postal ballot — every quarter. That was democracy run mad, because those officials had to be reelected before they had taken office and done anything. The unions are run by constant, interminable secret ballots.
I am in favour of ballots. Every reputable body of opinion—including, primarily, employers—is against the clause, because it undermines ballots.
It is said that if there is to be an industrial dispute there must be a ballot. If the vote goes against taking action, it must be abided by. If not, by penalty of law, the weight of the state will descend, funds could be sequestrated and one could even go to prison. According to the clause, if the vote goes in favour of industrial action it does not have to be abided by and everyone can do as they like. That surely undermines the principle of the ballot. Why have a ballot at all if no one has to take account of it? [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East, is a very jolly character. It is pleasant to see someone deriving pleasure from these squalid and gruesome proceedings.
I shall willingly give way if anyone can tell me of a body which does not work on the principle that I have described. As I understand it, in a democracy the minority have to abide by the majority vote. The majority prevail. That is certainly true in this place. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would insist on that being so. The same applies to every cricket club, football club, university, company or other organisation. Only the trade unions, by the diktat of this authoritarian and dictatorial Government, are expected to do things differently.
The Government are becoming schizophrenic. That is worrying. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to the Government's attitude to the Ford dispute. In 1979 they said that they were not in favour of an incomes policy and that the Government should not have a view about wage levels—everything should be decided by the free market and independent partners in that market. They said that the Government should keep out of such matters. Now, however, there are daily exhortations from the Secretary of State about wages being too high. The Government must make up their minds where they stand.
The Government are also becoming schizophrenic about whether trade unions should be coherent bodies. Do the Government want trade unions, operating in the labour market, dealing with industrial relations and negotiating with our great companies, to be coherent and disciplined organisations? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question when he replies to the debate. As I said in my intervention to the Secretary of State, when the general secretary of the National Union of Seamen appeared in the High Court recently he was asked to give an undertaking to call off the industrial action. The judge seemed to think that the undertaking given was not sincere and that the union would simply continue the dispute, so he was very severe on Mr. McCluskie, who was instructed to return to the court the following Tuesday and told that unless he used his best endeavours and exercised his discipline in the union to get the chaps back to work he had better "watch out". That union was expected to act in a disciplined and coherent way. The general secretary was told to enforce his discipline on the members or the union's funds would be taken away. Do the Government want unions to be disciplined and coherent?
Another example concerns the print unions at Wapping. When the unions were organising nightly demonstrations, the court gave instructions about those demonstrations. When it was felt that some union members were not abiding by those instructions, the court threatened to bankrupt the union. The national executive of the union, without having a ballot, exercised its authority under the rules—and the rules are the free contract between the union and its members, under which discipline is exercised — and obeyed the orders of the court and called off the strike. That is the way the trade union operated its discipline.
Do the Government want trade unions to have discipline and coherence, or not? They do not know. They are schizophrenic. They want it sometimes, but not at other times. If the discipline is to carry out a dispute, they do not want it. If it is to call off a strike, they insist on it, using the threat of huge penalties and swingeing fines. We should have the truth, and the Government should stop being schizophrenic, because that is not the way to make law. That is not the way to legislate for law that will stick and remain. Clause 3 will not remain. It will not endure, because it is not just and proper.
When I taxed the Secretary of State about this, he said that when a union calls a dispute a member has obligations to his union, but he also has obligations to other people, such as the employer, and to his contract. That is true, but those workers at Wapping who voted to take industrial action were sacked because they broke their contract. We have to ask whether we have the right to strike. If workers ballot to strike and take strike action but are then sacked and their contract of employment is revoked, we do not

have the right to strike. We do not have a right to strike set out in a constitution as they do in the continental countries. Britain is the only country in the Western world, as far as I know, that does not have the right to strike written into its law.
The way to end this conflict of obligations is for the Government to introduce legislation saying that if there is a strike the contract is suspended. That is what happens in the United States of America and every Western European country. The Secretary of State may say that that will encourage strikes, and the Government do not like strikes, but none of us like strikes. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has great experience of strikes and knows that the people who suffer are the trade union members who go on strike. They lose their wages and suffer mental stress, and there is stress on their families. They do not take such action lightly, or very often. The majority of working people have been on strike at the most only once or twice.
The right to strike is a basic inalienable freedom in any free democratic society. Show me a country without the right to strike and I will point to a dictatorship. Under this Government, we are moving towards that. The Government have no consensus for this legislation and cannot produce a single witness in support of it. This is a clause too far and a Bill too far. It will not stick, and it is the result of a vendetta, vindictiveness and arrogance. It is wrong.

Ms. Clare Short: We raised this matter in Committee. We suggested to the Government that the Solidarity trade union movement in Poland would not be free to operate in the manner that it wished under British trade union law. The Government said twice that in an unfree society such as that in Poland trade unions are needed, but that in a society like ours, which the Government say is free, we do not need them.

Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point about the Government's double standards. We should be in favour of free, independent trade unions in Poland — as, indeed, the Government are — but we should also be in favour of them in this country. Although the Government are in favour of free, independent trade unions in Poland, in this country they are taking away the rights of trade unions. We want free independent trade unions in every country, but above all in this country, where the trade union movement was born. The Government may think it an alien institution that was invented in Poland, but the Poles are only just beginning to learn about trade unions, and they are learning from us. We invented the trade unions. They are British institutions, native to this country. They will not be destroyed by this Government, and especially not by the Employment Front Bench team.
The Minister for Employment has some slight responsibility for training programmes. It is about time that Employment Ministers took part in a training programme on industrial relations and trade unions. It is all rather like a pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other. The Government are at the very limit of one extreme with this absurd, ludicrous legislation that no one supports. It is misguided and mistaken and, in the fullness of time, we will get rid of it.

Mr. Skinner: One or two hon. Members have asked what the Bill is all about, and some of my hon. Friends have made some very good arguments against it. I am waiting to hear one of the Tory Back Benchers have a go. I am sure that they must have something to say. I do not know whether they managed to say anything in Committee — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That simply proves that, when the Government say they want to guillotine a Bill, there is no truth in their argument that the Opposition have taken up all the time in Committee. This Bill is not guillotined, but Conservative Members still did not say anything in Committee. It blows a hole in the Government's claim that the Opposition deliberately filibuster.
The Bill is about shifting the balance of power away from working-class people and their families towards the bosses. Since 1979, there have been several Acts dealing with employment issues, every single one of which had within it the idea that the Thatcher Government could say to the nation, "This is an another Act on the statute book that hammers the trade union leaders"—the emphasis is always on the leaders. For the past decade, it has been the classic Conservative belief that if they attacked a few trade union leaders that would gain a few percentage points in suburbia-land—the people with the filofaxes, and the pampas grass in their gardens. The Government tested their argument through MORI and Gallup, which asked, "What do you want?" Sadly, many people in the south of England in particular, but also in other parts to a lesser degree, replied, "Hammer the trade union leaders."
Most of those people—the yuppies now searching for their Porsches outside the pawnshops — never thought that trade unions were about trade unionists, about men and women belonging to trade unions, yet some of those yuppies perhaps come from working class families.
Those people bought this silly notion. The Prime Minister's crown princes will grovel at her feet and will probably do so again tomorrow when there is a vote on the televising of proceedings in this place. They will scamper into the Lobby after her. I bet the shop stewards will be on the door saying, "Get 'em in." They will be running, saying, "Where has she gone?" Let us suppose that one of them says, "I'm not going into that Lobby. I believe in televising Parliament. I'm going to invoke clauses 3 to 5 of the Employment Bill. I'm going to opt out." What chance has he or she of getting promotion? He or she will not even get a bag-carrier's job, let alone a post as an unpaid, grovelling parliamentary private secretary. That is the way they operate.
At the beginning of this Session, in the afterglow of victory, I have no doubt that, when it came to proposing legislation, the Prime Minister said, "We must have an Education Bill." The Secretary of State for Education probably said, "Oh, yes, we shall have to have one of those. I wasn't very happy about it during the election campaign, but I'll settle for it now that I've got the job. It may enable me to perform at the Dispatch Box and get a few votes when you've gone, Prime Minister." The Prime Minister probably said, "We shall have to have a poll tax Bill. You had better get that ready because it will give me £2,000 in my pocket. I want a poll tax Bill now. Get it on the statute book."
Then somebody would say, "We must have an Employment Bill." Somebody new to the Cabinet may ask, "Why? Do we need one? We have the trade unions tied up," to which the reply would be, "It's good

propaganda to have a trade union bill, if not two, in every Session because it shows that we are attacking the workers and, particularly, trade union bosses. We want there to be a configuration in the minds of people who drift between the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who leads the party that dares not speak its name, as that might just swing the vote."
Then someone in the Cabinet says, "What shall we put in the Bill? I've a good idea. What about making them have ballots?" Someone else will reply, "We've done that. Didn't you know?", to which the reply will be, "I went through the Lobby without thinking." Someone else will say, "We must have another one. It must have something to do with ballots because we are handing back the unions to the members."
The Ford workers have found that out in the last fortnight. Thirty-two thousand of them have had a taste of it and said, "Well, the Prime Minister said we've got to hand the unions back to the members. We've got'em and I'm not bothered about what Mick Murphy says." The Bill would tie Mick Murphy to the floor and release the members. This Bill is another attempt at being macho. This will show the yuppies that the Government are still in pursuit of the trade unions.
Clauses 3 to 5 make nonsense of democracy. On the "World at One" programme on the radio last week, I heard a discussion that I thought I would never hear in Thatcher-land. Three or four pundits were taking part, whom one would normally expect to agree with everything that the Tory Government want. One said, "This is an Employment Bill too many." I thought, "Well, has he switched? Has he been to one of our listening campaigns?" One never knows. There are all sorts going, so they tell me—the chamber of commerce and the Police Federation. They are writing the Labour manifesto. Others are now joining in. They are from establishment-type institutions. They have all the answers. They take them to "World at One". They throw in a Member of Parliament now and then just to liven it up, or to damp it down, as the case may be. Without exception, using long words, all have come to the same result and have said, "They have gone too far."
Of course, Governments can overreach themselves. This Government are doing it in many respects. They have done so with the Education Reform Bill, the poll tax Bill, and with this Bill. They are saying to the people, "Oh yes, we believe in democracy," but if two or three people do not accept the majority view, they will invoke the "David Owen" clause, the one whereby one does not accept the result of a ballot and one does as one likes.
Tory Members have jeered at the Liberals and the SDP over the course of the past few months. Of course they can jeer. They have not accepted the results of the ballot. Yet the same people will march through the Lobby tonight, following the Secretary of State for Employment and the rest of the Cabinet, to vote for clauses 3 to 5, which will license people to say, "The ballot? Get stuffed."
The Bill is part of the propaganda and machinery to dismantle Socialism. We cannot draw any other conclusion. Some time ago, the Prime Minister said that she wanted to see the end of Socialism. She actually believes that. It is nonsensical to say it. She is supposed to be bright, but she actually believes that she can dismantle a philosophy by passing Bills in the House of Commons. It is another step, she hopes—in my view, it will not


work—towards Victoriana, to impose a type of upstairs-downstairs mentality on anybody who works in the House of Commons. I refer to those who clock on and clock off. They know only too well about the upstairs-downstairs mentality in here. We saw recent evidence of cases in which that attitude was imposed upon workers in the building. I suppose that the Governent are trying it out, ready to impose it on many others.
I said earlier that the matter is all about shifting the balance of power towards bosses. We shall see more of that in the 15 March Budget. If the Bill is passed, it will result in many people outside realising at long last just how vicious and vindictive the Tory Government can be. Just imagine somebody going along to next Thursday morning's Cabinet meeting and saying, "I do not think that I like what you have just said. I am not going along with it." The Government will say. "We have just had a majority vote." They do not have votes, they have what is called a collection of voices. The Prime Minister will say, "What did you say?" He will say, "Well, I was just thinking that I do not quite like it." He would be sacked. The Government would do what they are telling trade unionists to do as a result of a ballot. It is the same principle. They want the jam, the cake, the bread and all the rest of it rolled into one.
Universities were mentioned earlier. It crossed my mind that they recently held a big ballot at Oxford. They all went up in those gowns and kinky clothes to vote. There was an ex-Prime Minister and Lord Jenkins—that bloke who tried to take my seat one day; I told him, "We've had a ballot for that seat and I have won." They had a vote at Oxford and Lord Jenkins won—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Durant .]

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

As amended, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Skinner: You see, Mr. Speaker, we have just had a vote. The majority won. What would you say, Mr. Speaker, if I said, "I'm not having it." I would be out. The House will see what I mean. My shoulders are big enough to bear it. I would be off; I would not argue, although as we both know, Mr. Speaker, we might occasionally argue about technicalities and the fine print.
The House can just imagine the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) saying when Lord Jenkins won, "I'm not having it. I'm going to invoke clauses 3 to 5 of the new Employment Bill. I'm not going to allow him to have the job." That makes nonsense of what the Government are doing.
I call these the "Peter Wright" clauses, because the same argument applies. In that case, we have a bevy of spies. They all agree to keep their mouths shut but when they get their pensions, Peter Wright comes along and says, "I'm not bothered about that. I'm doing my own thing. I'm going to make some money on the side." The principle established in clauses 3 to 5 will give licence to all those lawyers who are in a closed shop. They all have to join, although the lawyers' union is a different union altogether.

The House can just imagine what will happen. Some bright-eyed lawyer will come along and say, "I'm not going along with that lot." The clauses open a big door.
On Thursday, the Prime Minister celebrates 13 years as leader of the Tory party. She became leader on 11 February 1975. She got the job because there was a vote and she won. The previous Prime Minister was caught napping and one or two Conservatives thought, "We will give her a vote or two." Most people said, "They only tried to frighten Heath." I say that in parenthesis, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister won. That is what democracy means. The Tory party and other institutions are allowed all these democratic trappings, but it is a different ball game for trade unions. They are told, "You can have your vote but woe betide the winners if they do not act to suit the Tory party." That is the truth of it. The Government say to the bosses, "It is all right. We have a different method of balloting. Don't worry."
Just imagine someone turning up and being paid to invoke the clauses. It would not be for the first time. One has only to listen to some of the things that we have heard over the years from the Economic League and other organisations. People have been implanted into areas where there has been industrial ferment and strikes. Many of us thought that that happened during the miners' strike. Under the new system one would certainly not need many such people to wreck the whole of industrial relations in Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, those scabs — they could be saboteurs if they were paid — would be completely protected by the law under this undemocratic system.
I went to Manchester a few weeks ago to see some trade unionists and to speak at their anniversary rally. They were employed by Senior Colman and had been on strike for 12 months. Some of my hon. Friends know about the case. Those men got done—not for taking part in a ballot, but because they could not fill in their timesheets properly, according to the gaffers. They got sacked because they did not fill in their timesheets. Imagine if that applied in here. I told them "They don't have timesheets in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords, they just nod to the bod, get their names in the book, call for a drink at the bar and go, getting £100 per day tax-free."
When I saw those 31 men and women who were still on strike after 12 months I could see all the Employment Bills in front of my eyes, and here is another to stoke up some Senior Colman-type industrial disputes, to start another Silentnight, to attack many of the low-paid workers, many of whom, after a lifetime of never having been on strike, finally have to take up the cudgels because the freedom to strike, to withdraw their labour, is the only freedom that the trade unions have. However, having had a democratic vote they are being told, "Not only will your funds be sequestrated if there is secondary action, but people can now usurp your authority by taking you to the courts." Who elected the judges? Of course, they did not have a vote. They did not have to run into that problem.
I can see a lot of difficulties ahead, yet I am an optimist. To be a Socialist, one always has to be optimistic. In this deceitful, vindictive legislation I can see the seeds of a revival among many of our people. It will not only be the blue and white-collar workers, the nurses and others who have taken industrial action recently, who will spot just what is happening now in this so-called "mother of Parliaments." The Tory Government are now trampling on freedoms in such a way as to say, "We treat you


working people with so much contempt that you can have a ballot but we shall give the rights to the people who have been defeated." That is contempt, but the Government will see to it. It may take a while; it may need a few more policy reviews and a bit more listening, but it will happen.
We are now reaching the point where, such is the nature of industrial relations in Britain today, exemplified by the Bill, that I almost thought that I could hear the siren calls from the Tory Benches when the nurses and ancillary workers went on strike last week. I was getting ready to hear the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and his mates talking about the nurses as the enemy within. That will come. However, because it will come, people will not stand for it.
As those people who have commented on the Bill and are not Socialists, not even trade unionists, have said, it is one Bill too many. One of my hon. Friends has referred to the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which flew in the face of the Donovan Commission report, which had been published some time before. People said then that it was not fair. The result was that the then Tory Prime Minister had to come to the House to say, and I paraphrase, "I have put the Industrial Relations Act on the back boiler".
We shall vote against the Bill in the knowledge that a lot of people believe that the cause that we are fighting is correct. The very idea that in a democractic country one can have a democratic ballot between trade unionists but because they are trade unionists no notice will be taken of it, is why we shall win in the end.

Mr. Cryer: I hesitate to follow such a powerful exposition of the tortuous nature of the Bill. [Interruption.] The more that Conservative Members suggested that I should not, the longer I will take to expound the case in detail, because they need some time to be educated.
Clauses 3 to 5 are designed to wreck the democratic provisions that the Government are imposing on ordinary workers. I thought that it might be useful to remind the House of the wage levels about which we are talking. The Low Pay Unit has done a survey in west Yorkshire and Humberside specifically about the wages of the people who want to negotiate decent terms and conditions, and the low wages that are paid to young workers.
A 20-year-old working full-time on a construction site earns £1·30 an hour. An under 21-year-old is paid £28 a week for working full-time in an estate agents' office. A 20-year-old is paid £60 to work more than 40 hours a week doing motor repairs. An under 21-year-old is paid £52 to work 37½ hours a week in a hydraulics warehouse. An under 21-year-old is paid £1·50 an hour to work in double glazing assembly. An under 21-year-old girl is paid £38 to work 44 hours a week in a stables. A 17-year-old hairdresser, a second-year trainee, is paid 85p an hour. Those wages were paid in 1987.
Conservative Members are trying to wreck the development of trade union membership and the negotiating rights for people earning 85p per hour. That is scandalous when Conservative Members are getting £22,000 a year as Members of Parliament, but most of them are also lining their pockets through parliamentary adviserships and directorships. Some of them are knee-deep in such work, yet they will vote in the Lobby tonight for a Bill to stop trade unions organising themselves and,

after a ballot when a majority has decided to take strike action, applying some rules that have stood the test of time and have been applied fairly over the years. They are saying that if somebody does not support strike action and goes through a picket line, or does not take part in a strike, trade unions can say, "We have taken a majority decision and we will make you subject to our rules." However, they will then be subject to the compensation provisions in clauses 3 to 7. Moreover, that compensation will be taken from the trade unions' funds. It is another attack on trade union finances.
Therefore is it not unreasonable that we should examine the matter in some detail because when the Secretary of State was defending clauses 3 to 5 against the Opposition amendment which is very reasonable he said that as a result of the legislation of Conservative Governments, industrial relations in Britain had actually improved. I intervened and said that perhaps the statistics were being fiddled again. The statistics are being fiddled in a way that I shall explain to the House.
The legislation will not improve industrial relations. It will make them worse. That was a characteristic of past legislation. The Government claimed that fewer days have been lost through strike action. The truth is that days are not counted when workers who go out on strike are subsequently sacked, even if at the end of the period those workers are reinstated. The days when they are out on strike, but which the employer counts as days when they are sacked, are not included in that total.
10.15 pm
I shall give the House an example of the way in which the statistics which are used to justify these three clauses have been fiddled. In west Yorkshire there was a two-year strike at Silentnight bedding manufacturers, the chairman of which has an abiding hatred and detestation of trade unions which equals that of the Government and would have made Adolf Hitler proud. He negotiated with the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union and they reached an agreement. In justifying these three clauses the Secretary of State said that trade unions have not been concerned about creating redundancies through high wages, but this example refutes that. The Silentnight workers said, "We won't accept a wage increase providing you don't make anyone redundant and we shall have the arrangement for a minimum of six months. We shall waive a national agreement." The workers undertook their side of the bargain, but after two months the management sacked 40, in breach of the agreement. The workers took a ballot and in both factories there was a clear majority for strike action.
These people were not high wage earners; they were relatively low wage earners. The Clarke family had been sucking the firm dry by taking a huge proportion of the profits. One third of what they took would have paid the claim for a full 12 months. That is a clear example of a parasitic employer sucking money from the firm for himself and his family and depriving workers of a decent wage.
The workers went on strike and were sacked after three months, but they stayed out for nearly two years. Of those 24 months only three were counted as strike action. Nevertheless, it remained one of the longest, most bitter disputes that west Yorkshire has seen. By manipulating the statistics the Secretary of State is claiming that industrial relations have improved. That is absolute nonsense.
Under clause 3 any worker at Silentnight who voted for strike action, walked through the gates to help the employer defeat the trade unions and was then subject to disciplinary action, could claim compensation from the union that took the majority decision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) so graphically and powerfully explained, it is against every basic tenet of democracy which hon. Members, the Cabinet and Conservative Members are supposed to uphold. There is not one other example—I shall be interested to hear the Minister produce another example, if he can—of where, when a majority takes a decision, a minority is not only exempt from that decision, but can claim compensation.
If the Minister says that trade unions have not applied the rules fairly—indeed, the Secretary of State gave one illustration—I am sure that hon. Members will agree that one example as a reason for legislation is a poor basis. If one used such a basis to legislate on the Cabinet, legislation would be introduced to stop Cabinet members committing adultery. The Government have not done so, but that is one powerful example—it rocked the nation—and is more important than the example the Secretary of State gave about one trade union.
If such a rule is good enough for trade unions which represent 9 million people, why is it not good enough for a handful of people in the Cabinet? Adultery is one example of something that must be stopped, so presumably legislation must be passed. The majority of the Cabinet must surely believe that, for the majority of the time, most of them behave with a certain moral standing in their private lives, but it is their public lives that worry me. Their public lives are disgraceful and are prime examples of degradation.
For years the trade unions have, with one or two hiccups, been managed well and run democratically. The notion that the one example that the Secretary of State has quoted is a justification for the vicious measure is wrong. It is a justification for every saboteur and every agent provocateur that the Tories can dig up. It is the encapsulation of the man who, in the 1960s, brought Chrysler to a halt. He was a member of a trade union, but all of a sudden he said that he had to resign from the closed shop. He had to resign because he said he was hearing the voice of God. God was telling him to leave the trade union. Some of us believe that he was either a schizophrenic, or, more likely, the voice of God was coming to him from the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation or the Tory party.

Mr. Skinner: Or Anderton.

Mr. Cryer: Yes indeed, they may have been communicating together. Perhaps they were members of the same church — the Methodists, the Church of England or whatever it was at that time. Certainly they were moved in the same way. If someone says they are hearing voices it is difficult to disprove that. Most people put it down to sheer pretence, mischief or a mental breakdown. However, under this legislation every knave or saboteur has the opportunity of legal backing. That is the purpose of the Bill.
The Government's political philosophy and standards are much the same—they will not like this—as those displayed in Germany under Hitler before the war. That is true in every aspect, from privatisation and their concern for small shopkeepers — that is an alleged concern

because it is not put into much practice because they are paid more by the multinationals and they call the tune—to their vicious attacks on the trade union movement. The cumulative effect of legislation from 1980 has been to ensnare and encircle ordinary men and women in a wreath of legislation to curb their activities.
The reality is that—I have said this before but it is worth repeating again and again—more days are lost each year through industrial injury than through strikes. That is based on the Government's statistics and, if that is so, why are the Government doing nothing about health and safety at work? They are not doing very much, apart from trying to water down standards.
There have been some graphic illustrations of Government cuts in public standards having tragic consequences. King's Cross is a by-word for cuts in staff. They have all been replaced now, but it is a bit late for the 50 people who were trapped when the fire swept through King's Cross. No one can deny the facts. The answers to parliamentary questions that I have asked show that there were cuts in health and safety standards on the London underground, and they were brought into the open by a chance fire.
In all those areas, the Government could use their time to improve standards of health and safety at work. If they did that, they might achieve the Valhalla for which they constantly seek, with the Opposition agreeing to improved standards of health and safety at work and tighter controls on asbestos. Despite their claims, they have been a hit lax about asbestos. There are still cowboy operators around. No qualifications are needed to get a licence to remove asbestos in our schools, houses, hospitals and factories.

Mr. Skinner: They do not have a ballot for that.

Mr. Cryer: That is right. The cowboys simply write to the Health and Safety Executive, obtain a licence and they are in work.
The Minister has the opportunity to accept the amendment, which proposes to delete clauses 3, 4 and 5, and make the Bill a little better. They should remove this extraordinary corruption of democracy. One ray of hope is that the Bill's ideology is so corrupt as to show the Government beginning to curl at the edges. They are becoming overweening and arrogant, and their supporters are beginning to find it difficult to justify their employment legislation. The Bill is the beginning of their undoing. Their arrogance has made them think less and produce more of such ugly Bills.
I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, especially after the powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, so I shall make this my last point. It is ironic that, when trade unionists apply the rules that have been approved democratically by the ballot procedure and a complainant then seeks compensation under clause 3(4)(b), the compensation must be paid from trade union funds. That is a further punishment on trade unions, which are already heavily pressed by the Government's economic policies. The Government's economic and social policies have destroyed 2 million jobs and are designed to subdue the work force and make people more complacent. Many of the people who lost their jobs were trade union members, but they no longer pay trade union subscriptions. As a result, the unions were hard-pressed for cash. The Bill is another attack on their


funds and is an encouragement to someone who may be a bit short of cash after a dispute to take his union to court in the hope of getting a little money back.
This is a scab's charter. It is designed to encourage disaffection in the trade union movement and to encourage the saboteur. Trade unions' funds, as well as the cohesive organisation of the movement, are being attacked. This legislation finally demonstrates that old truisms still hold sway. The trade unions represent ordinary working men and women struggling to make a decent living and obtain decent standards in their environment and their working conditions and the Government represent the owners of capital trying to stop workers combining in trade unions.
The Government have not succeeded in the past, and they are not succeeding now. The Government's policies are so appalling that they have brought out on to the streets people who have never taken industrial action before. They have produced a solid mass of trade union legislation since 1980, and they have brought the angels out—men and women who agonised for months and who could see their rotten conditions, and, more important, the conditions for their patients deteriorating because of the Government's shoddy policies of deliberately running down the National Health Service so that they could argue that only private money could rescue it.
There is always hope. There is hope in the Ford workers heeding what the Prime Minister said in 1978, when she saw a political opportunity and took it. The Ford workers, the nurses and workers in all walks of life will not be suppressed. There have been too many years of organisation, aspirations and democracy for this sort of shoddy legislation to be imposed on workers.

The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): My right hon. Friend set out the basic arguments for these clauses once again about two or three hours ago. I shall now try to respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate since then.
It is clear that strong views are held about our proposals, and that neither those views nor the arguments advanced in support of them have changed in the course of our discussions since Second Reading, or before. Quite a few Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), seemed to think that this would be the end of trade unionism as it is known today. I can assure the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that we are not out to destroy the trade unions, but are out to give a small piece of extra freedom to individual members of unions.
My right hon. Friend was pressed to give examples of unions disciplining their members. Some examples were given in the Green Paper some time ago. In recent months, even while we have been discussing the Bill, there have been the examples of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers expelling 500 members, and the National Communications Union is reported as having expelled a great many more than that.
Almost no Opposition Member has picked up my right hon. Friend's point about the effect of ballots when there are subsequent changes in offers as a result of discussions,

as frequently happens, and about whether a ballot should be binding in those circumstances. Whatever view one takes of the proposals, it is an odd doctrine to suggest that taking action—whether by striking or some other means — should bind a trade unionist, even after there has been a further offer, or perhaps several offers before or after the action started, and sometimes both.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seemed to agree a little with that point, although he might have gone along with it only for the purposes of argument, but I do not think that he would be happy with the clause even if it applied only where there was no change in an offer between a ballot and the members' decision to return to work, or to withdraw from the action. There is an important point there, which should be taken into account by Opposition Members and those who comment on those matters.
As some other hon. Members have said, I accept that, particularly when there is a strike but also when there is other industrial action, feelings often run high. Feelings have run high this evening. Some individuals might want to take it out on those who have not supported the action or who have withdrawn their support at some stage during the action. It has been argued tonight, as it has been before, that one of the effects of the unions exerting disciplinary pressure is somehow to draw the sting of those high feelings. I believe that union disciplinary proceedings also give credence to those who try to exert other pressure on those who have withdrawn from a strike or did not support it in the first place. That can work in one way, and sometimes it can work in another, often in the same dispute.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Cope: No. It has been a long debate, and the hon. Gentleman made a long speech.
The central point is the clash of obligations for someone who is faced with a strike call — the clash between his obligations to his union, which we recognise, and his obligations to his contract of employment, his family, the customers of the company, and, indeed the strength of the company itself, or whoever his employer is. The Bill does not choose for the trade union member which of those obligations he should honour. It gives him the opportunity to choose for himself. In the past the Labour party has given at best half-hearted support to ballots, but now Labour Members talk as if they were the staunchest defenders of ballots that there had ever been.
My right hon. Friend was asked when Opposition Members had said that those who disagreed with unions should leave them. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said that nobody in Committee had ever argued that point. In Committee the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said:
Of course they have other obligations, and if they find membership of a trade union so damaging to those other obligations, they can leave the union."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 November 1987; c. 110.]
On another occasion the hon. Gentleman returned to the subject and said:
If a person objects profoundly to what the union is doing, his answer is to withdraw from membership of it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 November 1987; c. 113–14.]
So that argument was used, and not only by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Martin Redmond: The Minister has accused Labour Members of being reluctant to accept


ballots. Given that in ballots the majority rule the day, why do the Government now propose legislation that will seek to destroy majority decisions in a secret ballot? Will the Minister comment on the Prime Minister's quotation from St. Francis of Assisi in 1979, which conveys the sentiment that where there is discord he shall bring harmony? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is acquainted with that. Perhaps he will relate that to the industrial action by the nurses for the first time ever — —[Interruption.] — and perhaps the Secretary of State will keep quiet or go outside the Chamber where he has been for most of the evening.

Mr. Cope: With regard to discord, we have already discussed the figures for strikes, days lost and the way in which the numbers have fallen. Whatever nitpicking takes place about those figures, the trend is perfectly clear.
With regard to the general argument for the clause, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when my right hon. Friend set out the argument for the clause, but he did so very clearly.
Labour Members want those who disagree with unions to leave them or for them to be driven out. They want the membership of unions to be constantly distilled. They go on about the rights of employees to belong to a union. The clause protects a person's right to remain a member even when he or she disagrees with the union on a matter. Labour Members reject that right.
These clauses are not the end of trade unionism as we know it. They are an importat piece of extra freedom for individual members of a union.

Mr. Strang: I am glad that the House has taken time to debate this amendment fully. These clauses are among the most indefensible that have ever appeared in a Bill before the House. It is a measure of how extreme and indefensible they are that so many organisations, which normally agree with the Government, including employers' organisations, have attacked them for being extreme and for undermining the democratic process.
As Labour Members have repeatedly said, the Government have been motivated, in the Bill and in the three previous Acts affecting trade unions, by the fundamental objective of undermining the bargaining power, strength and role of trade unions in our society.
The Minister acknowledged that feelings run high in these matters. That is true, but there is no doubt in our mind, or in those or many employers, including the Engineering Employers Federation, that, far from reducing anarchy and indiscipline during industrial disputes, these clauses will make matters worse.
It is hypocritical for the Government to talk about the need to protect workers who are on strike but who feel that if they do not return to work they will lose their employment, because in the Employment Act 1982 the Government created a position whereby workers dismissed while taking part in industrial action were collectively re-engaged three months later. That legislation enables an employer to practise discrimination against strikers and dismiss them.
We have heard no justification for this draconian set of clauses. This measure is not only damaging to good trade unionism but will have an adverse effect on industrial relations in this country. I have no doubt that it will be repealed—the sooner the better.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 246.

Division No. 169]
[10.45 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Allen, Graham
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Anderson, Donald
Grocott, Bruce


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hardy, Peter


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Harman, Ms Harriet


Ashdown, Paddy
Haynes, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Ashton, Joe
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Henderson, Douglas


Barron, Kevin
Hinchliffe, David


Battle, John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Beckett, Margaret
Holland, Stuart


Beggs, Roy
Home Robertson, John


Bell, Stuart
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Howells, Geraint


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blunkett, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bradley, Keith
Illsley, Eric


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
John, Brynmor


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Buckley, George
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Caborn, Richard
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Callaghan, Jim
Lambie, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lamond, James


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Leighton, Ron


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Terry


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Litherland, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Livingstone, Ken


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clay, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
McAllion, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAvoy, Tom


Cohen, Harry
McCartney, Ian


Coleman, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McFall, John


Corbett, Robin
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Cousins, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Cox, Tom
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
McTaggart, Bob


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alastair
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dunnachie, James
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eadie, Alexander
Morgan, Rhodri


Fatchett, Derek
Morley, Elliott


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Fearn, Ronald
Mowlam, Marjorie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mullin, Chris


Flannery, Martin
Murphy, Paul


Flynn, Paul
Nellist, Dave


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foster, Derek
O'Brien, William


Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Parry, Robert


Galbraith, Samuel
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Pike, Peter


George, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Prescott, John






Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Snape, Peter


Radice, Giles
Steinberg, Gerald


Redmond, Martin
Stott, Roger


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Strang, Gavin


Reid, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Turner, Dennis


Robertson, George
Walley, Ms Joan


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Salmond, Alex
Wilson, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Anthony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wray, James


Short, Clare
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mr. Frank Cook.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Allason, Rupert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Dorrell, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Durant, Tony


Ashby, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Favell, Tony


Atkinson, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gill, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bendall, Vivian
Gow, Ian


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Benyon, W.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gregory, Conal


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grist, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Brazier, Julian
Hayes, Jerry


Bright, Graham
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hayward, Robert


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hind, Kenneth


Burns, Simon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butterfill, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew





Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irvine, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jack, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jackson, Robert
Rost, Peter


Janman, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Latham, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lawrence, Ivan
Speed, Keith


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Speller, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Stevens, Lewis


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maclean, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stokes, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Madel, David
Sumberg, David


Major, Rt Hon John
Summerson, Hugo


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maude, Hon Francis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Roger
Trippier, David


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moss, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neale, Gerrard
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Neubert, Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Portillo, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Raffan, Keith
Woodcock, Mike


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Redwood, John



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. David Lightbown and


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived

Employment Bill

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 45, leave out 'any of.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 4 to 6 and 21.

Mr. Nicholls: The amendments address two concerns raised by the Opposition in Committee. First, they ensure that disciplining, in the context of maintaining professional standards, will not be unjustified and, secondly, they remove potential from disciplining in respect of assertions made in bad faith. I hope that they will be welcomed by the House.

Mr. Strang: I shall not detain the Committee, but it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I understand that they are intended as concessions to points raised by Opposition Members in Committee.
The purpose of amendment No. 5 appears to be that, where an individual member is disciplined for an action independent of a dispute—in other words, an action for which he would be disciplined even if there were no dispute—that would not be covered by clause 3. For example, in Committee we discussed the possibility of a trade union disciplining an individual member who took action contrary to health and safety considerations. Another example related to whether the clause would prevent the Royal College of Nursing from disciplining a member who took action incompatible with its code of practice.
Amendment No. 6 goes some way towards meeting the Government's undertaking on what the Opposition called the libel charter — where an individual member could libel an official, but it would not be possible for the trade union to discipline him. However, it does not go far enough. Someone may make a libellous statement, which, indeed, is determined by a court to be libellous, but it will not necessarily be covered by amendment No. 6, which states that for a statement to be excluded from the requirements of clause 3 an individual must have acted
either in the belief that it was false or otherwise in bad faith".
If the matter ever got to court and the person were disciplined, the trade union would have to show that the member made the statement in the belief that it was false or had otherwise acted in bad faith. That is difficult to prove.
If my understanding of the clause is correct, the Minister will probably find that the amendment is discussed again in another place. It is not a satisfactory way of meeting the Government's undertaking in Committee.

11 pm

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman asked me to compare amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I shall compare amendments Nos. 3 and 5 on the one hand and amendment No. 4 on the other hand. Amendment No. 4 would only have protected disciplining to maintain professional standards outside a strike context. One could have put an argument for doing that. The hon. Gentleman quite properly said that that would have gone far enough.
The conjunction of amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together is such that, if it is a matter of maintaining

professional standards, disciplining can take place. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to refer to the Committee debate. If what a union does is incidental to a strike or industrial action—if it is almost coincidental to it —and if it could show that it would have disciplined for that sort of matter anyway, it will be able to do so.
The example that we discussed in Committee was helpful. We discussed what would happen in a nursing home if nurses acted in an unprofessional manner by over-administering sedation. Obviously, in such a situation, a union will be able to show quite straightforwardly that it will always discipline for that matter, and that therefore, to that extent, it is almost coincidental to a strike. In such a situation, the clause will be everything that the hon. Gentleman would hope that it might be.
Amendment No. 6 addresses a specific concern. The hon. Gentleman will have opened his remarks on the basis that he thoroughly dislikes the whole clause and the Bill. The point that concerned him and other Opposition Members was that it will become a libellers' charter and that people could say anything that they want in the most bad faith and in the most malicious way. We believe that, as drafted, amendment No. 6 takes account of that.
When I was considering the amendment, the only thing that I could find about it which I suspect will not be entirely to the hon. Gentleman's liking was simply that it would be the case that, if an allegation were made in bad faith but was nevertheless true, that situation also would lie outside it. That is almost an exercise in logic. The hon. Gentleman would scratch his chin at it, but he would agree that it, at the end of the day, the assertion turned out to be true, even if it were made in bad faith, it would have to be exempt.
Subject to that rather narrow point, we certainly believe that it would answer everything that the Opposition want. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If he is not entirely satisfied with it, I imagine that it will be discussed again in another place. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will feel that, if not exactly what he wants, it is pretty close to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 4 in page 5, line 8, leave out from `(b)' to `by' in line 9 and insert—
'it consists in a failure to contravene, for any purpose connected with any such strike or other industrial action, any requirement imposed on that individual'.
No. 5, in page 5, line 37, at end insert—
`but an act, omission or statement by any individual does not fall within this subsection by reason of its being comprised in conduct falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (g) above if it is shown that that act, omission, or statement is one in respect of which individuals would be disciplined by the union irrespective of whether their acts, omissions or statements were in connection with conduct falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) above.'.
No. 6, in page 5, line 37, at end insert—
`() An individual who has been disciplined by a trade union shall not be treated for the purposes of this section and sections 4 and 5 below as having been unjustifiably disciplined if it is shown—

(a) that the reason or one of the reasons for disciplining him was that he made any such assertion as is mentioned in subsection (3)(c) above or encouraged or assisted any other person to make or to attempt to vindicate any such assertion;
(b) that that assertion was false and that, in making it or, as the case may be, in encouraging or assisting any other person to make or to attempt to vindicate it, that individual acted either in the belief that it was false or otherwise in bad fait; and


(c) that there was no other reason for disciplining him or that the only other reasons were reasons in respect of which he does not fall to be treated for those purposes as having been unjustifiably disciplined.'.—[Mr. Nicholls.]

Clause 7

RIGHT TO REQUIRE EMPLOYER TO STOP DEDUCTIONS OF UNION SUBSCRIPTIONS

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 11, line 19, leave out from 'that' to'; or' in line 20 and insert
'there has been or will be, as from a particular date, such a termination of his membership of any trade union as is within the knowledge of the union'.
The amendment addresses itself to the concern expressed by Opposition Members in Committee that clause 7(1)(a) as drafted would place no obligation on a trade union member to tell his union of his intention to leave. The amendment provides that a trade union member has to certify to his employer that the termination of his membership is known to the trade union. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Strang: We accept that the amendment constitutes an advance and we have nothing further to say on it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

EXTENSION TO NON-VOTING POSITIONS OF DUTY TO HOLD ELECTIONS

Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 14, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 32 on page 15 and insert—
'(1) After subsection (6) of section 1 of the 1984 Act (duty to hold election of voting members of a trade union's principal executive committee) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(6A) Notwithstanding anything in the rules or practice of any trade union, the person who holds the position of president of the union, or in the case of a union with no such position, any equivalent position, shall (if the rules do not otherwise provide for him to be a voting member of the union's principal executive committee) be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a voting member of the committee.
(6B) Notwithstanding anything in the rules or practice of any trade union, the person who holds the position of general secretary of the union, or in the case of a union with no such position, the position in the union which is the equivalent, or nearest equivalent, to that of general secretary, shall (if the rules do not otherwise provide for him to be a voting member of the union's principal executive committee) be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a voting member of the committee except where the post of general secretary (or nearest equivalent) is subject to appointment by the union and the rules and practice do not allow him to vote on the principal executive committee."'
The amendment deals with an important part of the Bill. The House will be aware that in the Employment Act 1984 the Government required trade unions to elect members of their principal executive committee who had a vote on that committee. At the outset, let me say that Opposition Members oppose such interference in the affairs of trade unions. Trade unions' rules have evolved organically over many years and usually relate to their

history and interests. Such rules provide the best way for the trade unions to conduct their affairs. We also believe that it is fundamental to our democracy that trade unions should be independent of Government interference and that it is an affront to the basis of independent trade unionism that the Government should seek to legislate on internal matters such as this.
However, the 1984 Act is on the statute book and at least it is has clarity: either a person has a vote on the executive committees or he does not. If he has a vote on the executive, he must be elected by the members, and if he does not, that requirement does not apply. Hon. Members will recall that the NUM amended its rules to comply with that requirement when it removed the voting rights of its president and general secretary. Subsequently, the NUM held an election and elected its president.
The important point is that clause 12 as drafted is utterly impracticable, and although the Minister sought to play down the draconian nature of the clause in relation to the officials who would have to be elected, his answers were not satisfactory. I draw attention to the provision that refers to any official who may attend the principal executive committee or who attends
for the purpose of providing the committee with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions.
We welcomed the assurance that the Minister gave in Committee that if individual officials attended the executive by invitation they would not be required to be elected by the members. However, we cannot rely on the Minister's statement. The whole area is still ambiguous. Many trade unions simply do not know whether officials, such as national officers covering particular sections of the union, will or will not have to be elected as a consequence of the clause. That is wholly unsatisfactory and we believe that the Government should clear that up and amend the Bill.
My second point relates to the giving of professional and technical advice on matters incidental to the carrying out of a union's functions. What emerged in Committee—it was quite remarkable—was that if an official who was normally there to give highly technical advice, possibly even on legal matters, strayed into giving advice that went beyond that, that official, whether he was called the legal officer or the administrative officer, would put himself in a position where he would have to be elected to hold that office in the union. That is what was said in Committee by the Minister when we drew an analogy between a legal officer in, for example, a trade union and a legal officer in a local authority. Therefore, to us that area of clause 12 is still ambiguous and it is unacceptable that it should go on the statute book in that form.
The other element of clause 12, which is an amendment to the 1984 Act, is the requirement that presidents and general secretaries will have to stand for regular election even if they do not have a vote on the executive committee. That is an outrageous interference in the internal matters of trade unions. As I said on Second Reading, several trade unions—I take as an example the National and Local Government Officers Association because it is a large trade union and organises the staff in local authorities—have decided that the general secretary will be appointed. NALGO's general secretary does not have a vote on the principal executive committee. In that union there is a clear relationship between the elected members of the


executive, who are lay members, ordinary trade unionists, who work in the various sectors of local government—the gas industry or whatever—run the union, determine its policy and are in control, and the general secretary and the other officials who are appointed, have no vote and are answerable to them.
I do not submit that that is the only model that should apply to the trade unions, or that is the best model. However, it is outrageous that the Government should seek to pass a law that will make it illegal for a trade union such as NALGO to continue that reasonable structure which, as we have said, is mirrored in, for example, local authorities themselves. To give another example in which the position is quite clear, the same applies to the National Union of Public Employees, in which the general secretary is appointed and is answerable to the executive, which comprises lay members of the union who are regularly elected, as executives of trade unions generally are.
Although we are opposed to the whole imposition in principle, in amendment No. 8 we have done something reasonable and ingenious against the background of the Government's approach. We have said, "All right, we will accept the principle that where the official has a vote on the executive committee — that is the principle in the 1984 Act—he must be elected." That is the first point that we have conceded to the Government.
Secondly, we have said, "As far as presidents are concerned, we will concede that point to the Government." In any case, presidents are often lay members of the union. In relation to presidents we are saying, "We concede the point in the Bill that the president would have to be elected regardless of whether he has a vote on the executive." Surely to goodness the Government could at least allow trade unions that choose to appoint their general secretary, who does not have a vote on the executive, to continue to do so. It is an outrage that the Government will debar trade unions from appointing a general secretary who could be treated as a chief executive. After all, general secretaries have different roles in different unions.
This is a modest and reasonable amendment, in that it accepts what has already gone before in the 1984 Act, and goes further in that it will require the general secretary, to avoid having to be re-elected, not to have a vote on the executive committee. It also leaves the position as it stands in the Bill as it relates to the president.
That is why I hope that the Government will look carefully at the amendment. If they are not prepared to accept it tonight, they should at least be prepared to look again at the clause when the Bill is in the other place, because, quite simply, it is an insult to the intelligence of the House for the Government to suggest that such interference in the internal affairs of trade unions will influence the general conduct of industrial relations or somehow make trade unions more democratic.
That is nonsense. There is nothing undemocratic about a trade union electing lay members to run the union and enabling those elected members to appoint a chief executive or general secretary who is answerable to them.

11 15 pm

Mr. Winnick: Clause 12 is another piece of sheer nonsense and impertinence and an interference in the running of trade unions.
I speak from some experience as I have been involved for more than 30 years in a white collar trade union. I am

a national officer of that organisation. Since that organisation came into being in 1890, the general secretary has always been appointed by the lay executive. The general secretary is regarded as the most senior administrative official. At no time has the person who has held the office of general secretary had a vote. That would have been inconceivable. The lay executive holds the authority in the union, and the general secretary, as a servant of the executive, is answerable to that body.
Because we are a democratic union, as are all trade unions, we decide our rules, regulations and policy at our annual conference. Every five years, at what we call the rules revision conference, which is part of our annual conference, we discuss changing and amending the rules. It is ironic that from time to time there have been suggestions that the general secretary should be elected. That inspiration has come from the ultra-Left, from those who would regard me as a timid reformist. The few revolutionaries in our number have gone to the rostrum and said that everyone should be elected, including the general secretary.
In the past few years, I have been the spokesman for the executive, and I have had to argue the case against that— without too much difficulty. I have never had any doubts that the conference would retain the position that it has held for many years. That is the position in my union.
Thus there is an alliance between those who could be described as revolutionaries and Conservative Thatcherites who believe that the position of general secretary should be subject to election. I argue as a democrat that each trade union should be able to decide for itself.
Some unions have always elected their general secretaries. In some trade unions the general secretary has a vote. However, in other unions such as in NALGO, in my union—APEX — in ASTMS and others, that has never been the case. Indeed, in my union, if the general secretary had the vote, there would have been a very strong case, which I would have supported, for that general secretary being elected. However, since he has never had the vote, and since it was inconceivable that he should have a vote on the executive, the large majority of the union never considered it appropriate that that position should he subject to election.
Apart from the general secretary, other people attend executive meetings. Despite the qualifications in clause 12, there may be court cases in which it is argued that somebody who is not a general secretary but who attends all or some meetings of the executive should be subject to election under clause 12. All kinds of complications and anomalies could arise.
Trade unions such as mine, which has always been run along democratic lines, are being lectured by a political party that is the least democratic that one could imagine. Sometimes I wonder which is the least democratic: the Communist party in the Soviet Union or the Conservative party in this country. The chairman of the Conservative party is not elected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was elected as leader of the Tory party in 1975. That is correct; I cannot dispute it. However, until 1965 the leader of the Tory party was not elected. It was only the late Mr. lain Macleod and Mr. Humphry Berkeley — who is not "late"—who argued convincingly that the Conservative


party ought to change its ways. It was not until just over 20 years ago that the Conservative party decided to elect its leader, yet it is lecturing us about what the trade unions should do.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is it not possible to take that point further? The prime qualification for getting the job of chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland is not to be able to get elected anywhere else. The chief executive got the job only because he was defeated when he stood for re-election to this House. The chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland is a member of the other place, because he could not even get a candidature.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be unwise to go down that road.

Mr. Winnick: No, it would not be wise. Since I always take the advice of the Chair I should not dream of going down that road. However, I think that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has made a valid point.
It is not being suggested that town clerks should be elected, yet the chief executive of a local authority is in precisely the same position as the general secretary of a trade union, because he is not a voting member of the executive. That is another illustration of a totally nondemocratic political party with a vast Commons majority dictating to trade unions that need no lectures in democracy from the Conservative party.

Mr. Allen: It is difficult to understand why a debate such as this is taking place. It was not until 1984 that intervention in the election of trade union executives was put on the statute book. However, we have almost become adjusted to the idea that we should argue about interference in the election of trade union executives rather than about the fact that we should be completely opposed to such interference.
The Trade Union Act 1984 stated that members of trade union executives should be elected every five years. We are now discussing a further rule change. There are 57 trade unions with over 10 million members affiliated to the TUC, and 48 of those unions will have to change their rules because of this latest Government imposition. One trade unionist out of 10 million will be able to take a trade union to court, assisted by the trade union harassment officer. He will be able to bring the whole process to a grinding halt, with financial assistance from the state. He will be able to hold his trade union over a barrel.
Trade union structures are to be completely overriden. Therefore, it is worth saying again that a great variety of trade unions, trade union procedures and trade union democracy has evolved over many years. To seek to impose one blueprint or plan on them is idiocy in the extreme. Unions have developed those procedures because they meet their needs democratically.
Some unions may wish to have a regional base to their elections because it is the most appropriate way to represent their members. That is not permitted under the 1984 Act. Other unions may want a powerful general secretary who has the authority of a direct election. Others, again, may feel that the role of a general secretary is more like that of a civil servant and that he should do what he is told by the union executive. Each union has

developed its mechanism to suit its needs and industry. In this Bill the Government are imposing a blueprint which will sit idly on many trade unions.
Some trade unions feel that an appointed general secretary acts as a buffer to the immediate considerations that are necessary in an election. They perhaps take a longer, more objective view. We may or may not agree with that but it is the right of trade union members to make that decision for themselves. The legislation is removing that power from them.
One such example is NUPE. Its view is:
Experience in unions where the General Secretary is required to stand for re-election at regular intervals suggests that there is a constant temptation to satisfy the wishes of active members, often at the expense of long term policy objectives, in order to assist their re-election.
We may not agree with that, but it is entirely consistent with NUPE which discusses its procedures every year at its conferences and executive meetings. It should decide for itself that that is the best way for it to pursue its objectives as a trade union.
The other argument is that this should be called the Scargill clause because of the Prime Minister being kept awake at night wondering how much more she can wring out of the Scargill factor and crucify the NUM, and deciding to pursue this objective because of one individual—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And ballot-rigging in the NUM.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Allen: I did not catch that comment.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I shall repeat it. I said, "And ballot-rigging in the NUM."

Mr. Allen: The hon. Lady, like many Conservative Members, is quick to use that phrase but slow to produce the evidence. If she has evidence of ballot-rigging in the Conservative party or a trade union, she should bring it to the notice of the appropriate authorities.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is customary, when hon, Members have evidence, to lay it on the table. That has been the precedent for many years. If the hon. Lady has any evidence to back her scurrilous, inaccurate and erroneous allegation she should lay it on the Table.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are free to express themselves as they wish, in accordance with our Standing Orders.

Mr. Allen: Direct elections may well provide greater strength and direct authority to particular general secretaries in unions. Some unions have deliberately chosen to have a weak general secretary because they feel that the executive, itself directly elected, should have the power and authority. For that reason they may wish their general secretary to be more of a civil servant. Under this legislation many unions will be forced to employ and elect a more powerful general secretary against their wishes.
Another union, the CMA — the Communication Managers Association — currently has three paid officers, a general secretary, who acts as chief executive, a deputy general secretary and an assistant secretary. Those people are now faced with a choice. Either they opt out of their national executive almost completely or they stand for election and assume a far greater significance


within the structure of their trade union than has hitherto been the case. It should be for the union to decide that. We are seeing here something that we would not tolerate in any other sphere of social or political activity.
11.30 pm
In local government it would be absolute nonsense if the chief executive of a local authority put himself up for election each year or every other year and began to challenge the directly elected councillors and their political authority.
Similarly, perhaps the people who have written the speeches of the Secretary of State and the junior Ministers throughout the Committee — perhaps they are more powerful than the Secretary of State—should be put up for direct election.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) not to read newspapers in the House.

Mr. Haynes: Hang him upside down.

Mr. Allen: I do not know whether the fact that the hon. Gentleman was reading the Conservative party newspaper is a great compliment or a great insult.
The Secretary of State may well feel that it would be inappropriate for his permanent secretary or for the deputies to the permanent secretary to be directly elected. That is the system that is to be imposed on 48 trade unions whether they like it or not. That sits ill on the Bill.
The National Union of Insurance Workers has also been placed in difficulty. Given the time, I am drawing on just a few examples, but there are examples right the way down the list of TUC affiliates. I received a letter from Mr. Mortlock, the secretarial and research assistant of the National Union of Insurance Workers, who says:
In February 1987 a new National Officer was appointed. The position had been widly advertised and attracted some 39 applicants, many of a very high standard. Had the appointment been subject to election it is inconceivable that a sensible choice could have been made from such a large selection.
We may have views on whether that is right or wrong, but the trade union took that decision. Yet that trade union is now to have a system imposed upon it that does not suit it and may not meet its needs.
The Law Society was a very useful source of information throughout the Committee stage and it raised another point that we took up strongly. A number of officers currently attend a national executive committee and speak and offer a view. Their unions will now have to decide whether those people, because they appear at the national executive, have to go out for a full ballot. That has caused grave concern throughout all trade unions and that is the object of the clause.
The clause seeks to sow confusion and turn active trade unionists into returning officers. Therefore, instead of looking after the conditions of their members and their health and safety, those trade unionists are forever filling out ballot forms and producing ever more convoluted efforts to meet the Government's requirements.
The Law Society expressed great concern that union legal officers might have to be put out for a national ballot. On clause 12(1)(b), the society says:
we fear that it might be possible for a union's legal adviser to be considered to be giving advice to the Principal Executive Committee which is more than 'incidental' to the carrying out of its function and accordingly he would be caught by the provision requiring election.

I underline the fact that the trade union harassment officer — the trade union commissar — who has been appointed by the Government will do the dirty work of enforcing many of the provisions, will be there sitting on the back of every union executive committee, waiting for a slip-up and the opportunity to fund a vexatious litigant to ensure that the union toes the line.

Mr. Clelland: And who elects him?

Mr. Allen: No one puts that post out to national ballot. Exactly the opposite. That person must justify his existence by looking for cases. If there are only four or five cases a year, and the post will cost £1·5 million a year, there might be a Rayner review after a year and the post will be wound up. He will have to be cost-effective, so he will look for dissidents in the trade union movement.
The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union has highlighted another difficulty. It is extremely worried about the effect on its executive because of the many people who attend its executive meetings and who may be trapped by the clause. How many of the following officers will have to submit themselves to national ballot: one national executive officer, one principal national officer, 10 national officers related to various industrial groups, three financial assistants, one research director, one head of communications, one personnel manager, one director of education, one legal officer, one health and safety officer, one pensions officer, and occasionally regional secretaries who are called in to discuss specific matters — Northern Ireland was one example?
More than 30 officers give occasional, frequent or regular advice to the national executive of the GMBATU. There is no assurance that any of them would escape the clause. In his letter to me, the Minister said:
I can say I should be very surprised if they were to be caught by the new subsection … As you are aware if a particular case was disputed then ultimately, of course, it would be for the courts to decide the issue.
We all know who will come to the aid of litigious members in the courts — the trade union commissar whose appointment the House approved this evening.
That is another gross interference with the national executives of our trade unions. They have a marvellous tradition of democratic accountability that they have developed themselves, and they should be left alone to pursue that course. Conservative Members of Parliament should be the last people to lecture the trade unions on democracy.

Mr. Foot: It is outrageous that the House of Commons should devote its time to discussing this proposition. The more one hears about the Bill, the more insolent it seems that the Government should have dared to introduce it. It has been examined in Committee, and one would have thought that the Government might have shown a little grace and intelligence and given way to some of the representations that were made by my hon. Friends. But it is outrageous for them to continue, right up to Report stage, demanding that the House should lay down the detailed provisions for elections in trade unions. The Government should spend their time on a whole series of other matters. A Government who, as my hon. Friends have said, have few claims to democracy in many of their appointments, should not come forward with such a proposition.
Most unions have grown up and shaped and developed their forms of elections and the distribution of power between elected and non-elected officials in their organisations through their traditions. One might have thought that the Conservative party would have respected the traditions of organisations that go back for more than 100 years, and have been developing and shaping their organisations to suit their members throughout that time. But now this anti-trade union Government come along and demand that the unions adopt the uniform pattern that they want to enforce, with no exceptions. All unions must conform, and the Government do not give a fig for their traditions, preferring to force them to do things in the Government's way.
This is a disgusting piece of legislation. The previous measures, as my hon. Friends — especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who made a wonderful speech — said, were an insult to our democracy. This Bill is an insult to the intelligence of the House of Commons. I am sorry for the Minister, who has been left alone on the burning deck to defend this ridiculous proposal.
I hope that the Government will take the opportunity offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), and accept his amendment gracefully. If they determine to go ahead without it, I look to the other place— I do not often look for intelligence there—for rescue from what is probably the most mean, petty, miserable, squalid little proposition yet put forward by this wretched Government. I hope that the House of Lords will throw it out, even if there are not enough independent Conservative Members in this House to do so tonight.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The clause raises several points that were brought home to me when I consulted some of the employers' organisations when the White Paper that preceded the Bill came out. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other hon. Members said that employers were not sure whether the Government were right. They had supported the previous legislation, and felt that there was a case for the Government to step in and give the unions back to their members, but they were worried that, by going into such detail, the legislation, far from improving the relationship between management and employees, would aggravate it.
The provision on presidents was referred to earlier as the Scargill clause. I agree that some union practices, of which his was the most blatant example, are indefensible. I do not dispute the sincerity of people working in the trade union movement, but to listen to the impassioned speeches of some Labour Members, one would be forgiven for thinking that there had never been anything wrong with the British trade union movement, and that it had always acted in the best interests of the workers it sought to represent and of the wider community.
It is a legitimate concern of Government to establish a balance, but the employers' organisations were concerned that if this type of legislative detail was produced by the Government, they could hardly argue if different Governments in the future produced different forms of legislation on, for example—as I might wish—building participation and workers' rights into the system. Such organisations do not want such a detailed code imposed on them. They want to be given the freedom to work out

for themselves how best to involve their employees in the decision-making process. If that is the view of the employers, and the Government seek to represent the employers, it is humbug to try to argue the merits of democracy on one side but the need not to intervene in detail on behalf of the other side.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) I should like to examine the details of the Labour amendment. As I understood it, the hon. Gentleman said that the position of president — the Scargill example — was conceded. His amendment proposes that a president should be treated as a voting member, and should be elected, but that that should not be the case for general secretaries who may be appointed by the executive. I agree very much with that point and the arguments that have been pressed by other hon. Members, but I am slightly concerned that the amendment might go a little too far the other way.
The argument is clear. The executive is elected and chooses to appoint a general secretary as the chief executive of the union. It is therefore not appropriate that the person appointed by the elected executive should have to be elected. That seems to be reasonable. The problem is that, because no time scale is set, it appears that a general secretary would be appointed without term, for a 10-year term, or for life under the Labour party's proposals.
As we have seen in the past, in those circumstances a general secretary can achieve an extremely powerful position in that union. If there is no provision for review, re-election or reappointment, that general secretary might effectively be in a more powerful position than the members of the executive, who are elected, depending to some extent on the terms of his original appointment.

Mr. Winnick: While I see the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to develop, surely the same could apply to a permanent civil servant who holds a senior position. The permanent secretary to a Ministry could influence his Minister. In that case it is the fault of the Minister, who is not strong-willed enough to resist the pressures. It is the same with a trade union. If the lay executive is doing the job to which it was elected, it will ensure that the general secretary is answerable to that executive. It will not allow itself to be dictated to by any individual who has been appointed by it.

Mr. Bruce: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which I am trying to probe. It is a matter of concern to me that, unintentionally, we might raise the role of the general secretary to a higher level.
I take the point that a democratically elected executive, which is subject to review every five years, should be strong enough to take appropriate action, but given that all the members of the executive are up for re-election every five years, there is a case for suggesting that the general secretary should similarly be reappointed every five years. I should prefer that, and it seems reasonable.
I accept the force of the argument of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that it is incredible that we are debating the detailed mechanisms of trade unions when in all sorts of other areas the Government are constantly lecturing hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need not to have such legalistic meddling by central Government. It seems that a double standard is being applied.
The Government are entering an area where they are interfering in details, the consequences of which are so detailed that they cannot be predicted. We have had the example of the Ford ballot. That may be fair, and the Government may sit back and say, "Well, we asked for democracy and we got democracy." But it is ironic that under systems that have been previously worked out, Ford workers might not now be on strike. The consequences of the Government's own legislation have accelerated a full-scale national strike.
One of the dangers of meddling in such detail is that the consequences cannot be predicted. While I can look at the matter objectively and say, "If we are to legislate for arrangements in trade unions, let us do it consistently," I accept the argument that we should not do it.
I predict that the Bill will do more harm than good to industrial relations. Having started out on a course that was popular, and in which in many respects they were right, the Government are going too far down the wrong road. They will do damage where previously they might have done some good.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) made it abundantly clear that he did not like this clause. He felt that it was an outrageous interference. He said that he had tried to introduce amendments, which, while dealing with matters of which he did not approve, nevertheless tried to live within the clause. That was certainly the way in which we took his amendment, and I must disappoint him by saying that we cannot accept it. However, I concede that it was a constructive attempt to deal with something that he does not like.
With regard to the 1984 legislation, the principle that guided the Government was that those holding the most senior positions in the trade union movement should be responsive to their unions. We felt it appropriate that they should stand for election, and one can take a view of whether the process of election is a good way of making people accountable to those whom they choose to serve. That argument has raged during the debate, and I am sure that it did in 1984.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East reminded us that the argument has moved on because other developments have made it possible for people to play a key role and have a major say in the affairs of a union, while at the same time not having a vote. The hon. Gentleman said, as did some of his hon. Friends, that there are examples of union leaders laying down their vote. I do not think that anyone would suggest for one moment that their influence within the union has diminished.
If one accepts—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East certainly does not—that the 1984 legislation was right, in the light of developments it seems to us that the legislation should be uplifted.
One aspect of the clause that has caused concern—particularly to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but I am not sure whether he was concerned that the legislation is vague or far-reaching — was the idea that under what will be section 6A(b) the requirement will extend to people who,
under the rules or practice of the union, attend and speak at some or all of the meetings of that committee otherwise than for the purpose of providing the committee with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions.

On a number of occasions in Committee I was accused of framing or lending my support to legislation that lawyers will have a jolly time interpreting for people. Some legislation is easier than ot`hers but that provision is perfectly plain. One may not agree with the principle that it enshrines, but the words that it uses are as plain as one could expect to find on a statute. If one is playing a part in the deliberations of a trade union — not giving the information that a lawyer might, that it can go away, chew over and decide policy in respect of, but taking part in the policy-making process of a trade union—we say that it is right, as it was in 1984, that a person in that, position should be subject to election.

Mr. Allen: If the system is so good that it must be applied to trade unions, to what other organisations does the Minister suggest it should be applied?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that I was addressing his hon. Friend's comments one after the other, but if he wants to jump the queue I shall allow him to do so.
The hon. Gentleman is trying to make the point that he has made a number of times in Committee. He may feel, on reflection, that it is not a terribly good one, but it is that, if it is good enough for the trade union movement, why is it not good enough for the Conservative party? All that I would say, without a trace of irony, is that if the hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between a trade union and a political party, I feel for him. There is a difference, which is apparent to his hon. Friends —[Interruption.] The ripples of laughter that greeted that statement suggest that his hon. Friends realise that fact. The hon. Gentleman should be able to understand the difference between the two.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North was concerned that the legislation might not be clear enough in respect of people turning up at meetings. I believe that the provision is as clear as it can be and enshrines the principle that a person taking part in policy-making decisions should be prepared to stand for election.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made the point in a number of ways that it would be implausible for the chief executive—a mere appointee—to be required to run for election. He suggested that on that basis a permanent secretary might also be expected to run for election. If the hon. Gentleman's logic were correct, which it is not, it would suggest that all trade union appointees spend their time scratching away with their quills in the back room, never seeing the light of day.
No doubt there are some who fit that description, but some appointed general secretaries have the highest profile in their unions and play a crucial part in directing policy. I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, even though some of his hon. Friends do not, so he will appreciate at once that the mere fact of being an appointee does not mean that the person concerned can be compared with a mere chief executive or a mere permanent secretary. Again, the hon. Gentleman has pushed the analogy too far.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Nicholls: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman so often in the past few weeks that I may as well allow him one last crack of the whip.

Mr. Allen: If the Minister is not prepared to concede that permanent secretaries should be elected, surely the


person who sits in at Cabinet meetings, and gives far more than factual and technical advice — the Cabinet Secretary, formerly Sir Robert Armstrong—would be a prime candidate.

Mr. Nicholls: If one thing unites the hon. Gentleman and myself, it is the fact that neither of us has any experience of Cabinet government. However, if he discusses the subject with those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who are old enough to remember proceedings in the Labour Cabinet, he will appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary's role does not fit the analogy that he seeks to make.
It is always a pleasure to reply to a debate in which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has participated, as he speaks from a vast range of experience. His speech on this occasion seemed to centre around the proposition that the Government's proposals were outrageous and disgusting, and similar hyperbole. To Conservative Members, it is curious to hear the right hon. Gentleman describe in those terms the extension of the democratic process of election. One may argue about whether it is a good idea in the circumstances, but to describe a provision enabling people to vote for those who are to lead their union as an outrageous proposition sounded very much like a voice from the past. Without wishing to be unnecessarily cruel to the right hon. Gentleman, it did not even sound like a voice from the recent past.

Mr. Cryer: If the Minister is so dedicated to the spread of elections, why not start by having the chairman of the Conservative party elected?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not all there a few moments ago when I replied to that point as expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Notthingham, North. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference between a trade union and a political party, it would take someone with vastly greater powers of persuasion than mine to make any dent in his view.
My final point should unite the whole House. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) sounded at first as though he was about to agree with the Government, then as though he was about to agree with the Labour party and in the end as though he did not even agree with himself. That is the kind of leadership that one expects from the element that he represents and was no doubt only to be expected, bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman is here partly in the place of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith).
In conclusion, this is one of those issues on which one has to make up one's mind on a point of principle and decide where one stands. On that basis, I am afraid that the House will have to divide to decide where it stands.

12 midnight

Mr. Strang: The Minister's reply is unacceptable, and in some respects a step back from what was said in Committee. The trade unions are democratic, independent organisations, and that is the way that it should be in our society. It is a monstrous intrusion in their internal affairs to seek to lay down a particular pattern of their officers.
New section 6A(b) is not clear and there is no doubt — this, again, came out clearly in Committee — that

many trade unions genuinely do not know which officers are covered by it and which are not. It is not simply a question whether they intend to participate in the committee. The wording is much more complicated than that. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment. Clause 12 is an outrageous and unjustified imposition on any trade union, and it should never have come before us.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 246.

Division No. 170]
[12 midnight


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foster, Derek


Allen, Graham
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Donald
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Galbraith, Samuel


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barron, Kevin
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Battle, John
Graham, Thomas


Beckett, Margaret
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Beggs, Roy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bidwell, Sydney
Haynes, Frank


Blunkett, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Boateng, Paul
Henderson, Douglas


Boyes, Roland
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Keith
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Holland, Stuart


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buckley, George
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Janner, Greville


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
John, Brynmor


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lambie, David


Clay, Bob
Lamond, James


Clelland, David
Leighton, Ron


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Coleman, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livingstone, Ken


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
McAllion, John


Crowther, Stan
McAvoy, Tom


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, J.
Macdonald, Calum


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McFall, John


Dalyell, Tam
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Darling, Alastair
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Bob


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Doran, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, James
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Flannery, Martin
Michael, Alun


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce






Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Sedgemore, Brian


Morgan, Rhodri
Sheerman, Barry


Morley, Elliott
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mowlam, Marjorie
Short, Clare


Mullin, Chris
Skinner, Dennis


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Nellist, Dave
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


O'Brien, William
Snape, Peter


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerald


Parry, Robert
Stott, Roger


Patchett, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Turner, Dennis


Prescott, John
Walley, Ms Joan


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Reid, John
Wilson, Brian


Richardson, Ms Jo
Winnick, David


Robertson, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Robinson, Geoffrey
Worthington, Anthony


Rogers, Allan
Wray, James


Rooker, Jeff
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Mr. Frank Cook and


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Allen Adams.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Allason, Rupert
Cope, John


Amos, Alan
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Den


Atkins, Robert
Durant, Tony


Atkinson, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Favell, Tony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gill, Christopher


Benyon, W.
Gow, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gower, Sir Raymond


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grylls, Michael


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hannam, John


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hawkins, Christopher


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hayes, Jerry


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayward, Robert


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)





Holt, Richard
Redwood, John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Renton, Tim


Howard, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rost, Peter


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ryder, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jack, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Janman, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knowles, Michael
Speed, Keith


Knox, David
Speller, Tony


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Latham, Michael
Squire, Robin


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Steen, Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sumberg, David


McCrindle, Robert
Summerson, Hugo


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Madel, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Major, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marland, Paul
Thornton, Malcolm


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tracey, Richard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trippier, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moate, Roger
Walden, George


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Ward, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Neubert, Michael
Watts, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wells, Bowen


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Page, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Winterton, Nicholas


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wood, Timothy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Woodcock, Mike


Portillo, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, William (Corby)



Price, Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Raffan, Keith
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. David Maclean

the person attempting to purchase a weapon or weapons is not

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Bill to be further considered this day.

Police, Fire and Civil Defence Authorities

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government Act 1985 (Police and Fire and Civil Defence Authorities) Precepts Limitation Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
The draft order sets the maximum precepts that can be levied for the financial year 1988–89 by the joint police and joint fire and civil defence authorities with whom it has not been possible to come to an agreement over their precepts. Hon. Members with long memories will recall that a similar order was made for 1986–87. It was then debated at some considerable length.
I hope that the House will not think that it is necessary to debate this order at quite such length. We were spared that task for the current financial year by the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1987, which determined the expenditure levels for the authorities and their precepts by reference to a formula. In total, the expenditure levels for the police authorities for 1988–89, at £421 million, represent a 6·2 per cent. increase over the levels that were set by the formula for 1987–88. The corresponding figure for the fire and civil defence authorities is £371 million—a 5·1 per cent. increase over the figure for 1987–88.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: During the next few minutes, will my hon. Friend explain to the House and to the ratepayers of West Yorkshire why those ratepayers have to pay so much more than the rest of the country for their fire authority? In West Yorkshire the budget met by grant is 26·98 per cent., whereas on Merseyside it is 58·27 per cent. I have great difficulty explaining that to my constituents and it would help if my hon. Friend could explain it to me.

Mr. Patten: Perhaps I may pick up that point now to save my hon. Friend from having to listen to the whole of my speech. The position in West Yorkshire arises because under the present system authorities' grant settlement depends on their grant-related expenditure assessment, their rateable value resources and their expenditure. That is why the West Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority's grant entitlement next year is different from that for 1987–88. The difference is equal to about £1·4 million—the equivalent of a 0·6p rate.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: Indeed. West Yorkshire is here in force.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister take it from me that West Yorkshire receives the lowest grant per head of population and has to levy the highest precept of any county? There is a substantial problem with West Yorkshire and I hope that the Minister will give the matter special consideration.

Mr. Patten: Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and this is the last occasion on which we shall debate an order such as this. The hon. Gentleman's point, to which we listened carefully, points to his need to support the Local Government Bill, which will enable us to sort out many of the problems surrounding the relationship between grant-related


expenditure and expenditure levels, and I look for the hon. Gentleman's support in future years. As hon. Members may be aware—

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: Yes, indeed. There is no need to point.

Mr. Fatchett: I only pointed because the Minister seemed lost in his brief and I thought that it might be useful to remind him that the House was still sitting.
Will the hon. Gentleman respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that the difficulty relates to this year rather than to subsequent years? It does not relate to the Local Government Bill. What does the Minister propose to do for West Yorkshire this year, because it is this year that is crucial to the ratepayers of West Yorkshire and to the service that is provided?

Mr. Patten: I shall forgive the hon. Gentleman for his personal remarks; I do not hold any personal animosity against him. I can tell him exactly what we are doing this year. The maximum precept this year, which is 15·72p, will allow for an increase of some 7·7 per cent. over West Yorkshire's expected expenditure for 1987–88. We think that that is a reasonable level of provision. As hon. Members may expect, there are variations in the percentage—

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: West Yorkshire is exciting a lot of interest.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). He prayed in aid the 15·72p precept. Is not that a cut of nearly 20 per cent. in the figure for the current year?

Mr. Patten: No, Sir. In no way is it a cut. Between 1986–87 and 1988–89 there has been an overall increase of 22·1 per cent. in the levels of expenditure allowable. That is a substantial increase in public expenditure by anyone's standards and the authority should be able to manage within that provision.

Mr. Ian McCartney: rose—

Mr. Patten: Well, I should like to make a little progress—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. One at a time. The Minister has the Floor at the moment.

Mr. Patten: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) first.

Mr. McCartney: I thank the Minister for giving way. He has been rather economical with the truth. Since 1986 the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has been trying to resolve the problems of the financing of West Yorkshire. The reality is that this year, for example, Merseyside, which is commensurate with West Yorkshire, has a percentage of GREA over maximum expenditure limits of 94·1 per cent, while West Yorkshire's is 72·7 per cent. and Merseyside's maximum precept is 8·22p while West Yorkshire's is 13·41p. Can the Minister explain why

it has taken since June 1986 until last Monday for the Minister to meet the AMA to consider that matter and why, when he was meeting that body, he had already made the decision in relation to West Yorkshire?

Mr. Patten: When the delegation met my noble Friend Lord Ferrers in another place, they were able to have a full discussion about the recommendations made by the AMA. The hon. Gentleman cannot fly in the face of the fact that there is a 22·1 per cent. increase in the level of expenditure but in 1986–87—[Interruption.]

Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten: Yes, but I am trying to finish my sentence.—and the proposed amount for 1988–89 as listed in the order itself — [Interruption.] —I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Peacock: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. My concern is not about the increase in expenditure but about what the Government are going to do about the grant. It is the basic grant that is the problem and not the increase in expenditure.

Mr. Patten: That is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. —[Interruption.] That is a matter of fact.
As hon. Members are aware, there are considerable variations in the percentage increases for each authority.

Sir Giles Shaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the robust and wholly technically correct way in which he is seeking to defend the position. However, is he not aware that in relation to the fire precept and the fire expenditure in West Yorkshire there has been a longstanding disagreement between my hon. Friend's Department and the local fire authority? If it was purely a matter for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, would my hon. Friend be prepared to advise our right hon. Friend on what he would wish to see for the fire expenditure— [Interruption.] — because this is a crucial issue?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) was the Minister of State, Home Office who made a most moving and passionate speech in favour of similar provisions in 1986, which I have read and reread carefully. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that this is an issue for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, my right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that he is always prepared to consider methodological suggestions about changes to the grant-related expenditure for West Yorkshire in this respect at any time.
Indeed, there is a forum—the grants working group of the consultative council on local government finance —where proposals for changes can be tabled either by a local authority or by the Department of the Environment. The intention is that the development work on the fire grant-related expenditure assessment should he taken forward in the coming months. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey regards that as an adequate answer to his direct question—[Interruption.] Does he not?

Sir Giles Shaw: My hon. Friend made a perfectly adequate suggestion. It is therefore up to those in West Yorkshire who wish to argue that case, to use it on the


understanding of my hon. Friend's suggestion that there is room for discussion of the principle of grant-related expenditure within that forum.

Mr. Patten: I agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has said.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: I have heard enough about West Yorkshire. I should like to deal with South Yorkshire. We have only a small pot of gold, but it is £500,000 light. It seems to have been lost between the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. Will my hon. Friend explain where that money has gone, or if it was ever there?

Mr. Patten: Indeed, it would have been extremely careless of us to have mislaid £500,000. Even by my standards that is more than small change—

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: May I answer my hon. Friend's question before giving way?
The expenditure implied by the 1988–89 precept for South Yorkshire is 6 per cent. more than this year's expenditure. That represents a hefty 19 per cent. increase over the past two years. Those increases are significantly more than the level of inflation. That certainly will allow for service development in South Yorkshire to continue.
I shall give way for the second and last time to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I am sure that he will understand that I am anxious to make some progress.

Mr. McCartney: Is the Minister aware that Lord Ferrers had a meeting about South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Merseyside last week, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment pulled out at the last moment for the second time? Apologies had to be made for the fact that he was not there to put the case for the Department of the Environment.
Has not the Home Office been smoked out by the Department of the Environment? The promises to sort out this matter in regard to Yorkshire have not been kept. The Department of the Environment is turning the screw. The position is unacceptable and that is why the Minister did not attend the meeting with Lord Ferrers last week.

Mr. Patten: That is not true. The Home Office and the Department of the Environment speak with one voice on these issues. The amounts of money that are available are reflected in the order, to which I shall make another attempt to return.

Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order and the first is—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall take them one at a time.

Mr. Hardy: From the start of the debate it has been obvious that there is considerable confusion and concern on both sides of the House. One and a half hours is grossly inadequate to protect the interests of the House and the various regions of Britain represented in the debate. Secondly, despite the claims that Ministers at the Home Office and the Department of the Environment speak with one voice, the element of confusion in South Yorkshire,

and presumably, elsewhere suggests that the appropriate Minister from the Department of the Environment should be present to provide information that many hon. Members have sought already, and which other hon. Members certainly will be seeking.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In answer to the first point of order, the time allocated for this measure has nothing to do with the Chair. In reply to the second point of order, I very much regret the fact that there is confusion among hon. Members from Yorkshire, as I, too, come from Yorkshire. Perhaps we can now get on.

Mr. Patten: I entirely agree. I intend to follow your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and get on with it.
As hon. Members may expect, there are variations in the percentage increases for each authority. We should expect that, as they reflect their particular circumstances. However, we are satisfied that, making proper allowance for efficiency, the expenditure levels for each of the police authorities will enable them to maintain and improve present levels of service. That also applies to the fire and civil defence authorities.
Having determined the expenditure levels, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set maximum precepts. These are derived from the expenditure levels that have been decided upon, together with the authorities' entitlement to block grant under the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89 and the rateable values for each area. My right hon. Friend notified all the authorities in December of the maximum precepts that he was about to set. The authorities were given until the middle of January to let my right hon. Friend know whether they accepted the proposed maxima.

Mr. Tony Favell: Many Conservative Members will be appalled to hear that there has been an increase in expenditure of 22 per cent. over the last two years. Is it not time that we refreshed our memories about section 42 of the Local Government Act 1985? It allowed the Secretary of State to return the functions to the metropolitan boroughs and to abolish the fire, police and transport authorities that are turning themselves into mini-empires. They are not far short of the mini-empires that the metropolitan county councils became. Will my hon. Friend remind our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment of that fact?

Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I shall draw his trenchant remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I should emphasise that we are not specifying what should be the precept—only the maximum amount that an authority can levy. They are able — indeed, some authorities have done so—to precept at a considerably lower level than the maximum because they have made efficiency gains that permit them to so to do. Thereafter, the authority is free to determine how to spend the money at its disposal. The precept simply limits the amount that can be raised from the ratepayer. Of the 13 authorities, six —Merseyside and South Yorkshire police and Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and London fire and civil defence—accepted the proposed maxima. We have welcomed that fact.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister can see that there are very strong feelings on both sides of the


House. The West Yorkshire fire authority has made it clear that the precept will not allow it to maintain the standards of service that the Home Office lays down and that some areas of West Yorkshire cannot meet those criteria.

Mr. Patten: I made it clear in my response to the two interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) that considerably increased amounts of money are available. Exactly the same accusations about the end of the world coming shortly to the fire service were made in the 1986 debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, who was then Minister of State, Home Office, made it clear that in his view the provision would be more than adequate. The levels of service in West Yorkshire have improved during the last two years. My hon. Friend's prediction, made with characteristic foresight, can be banked upon completely. There is no evidence for what the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) says.
The remaining seven authorities with which we are concerned did not accept the proposed maxima and presented arguments about the levels of their precepts. Those arguments have been expressed during this debate. Four of the authorities requested meetings. That meeting took place with Lord Ferrers, at which they expressed their anxieties about the level of the precept. Some of the authorities at that meeting had sent deputations earlier in support of their redetermination applications.
My right hon. Friend was not persuaded that there was sufficient grounds for increasing the maximum precepts for five of them. However, he was satisfied that two authorities, Northumbria police and Merseyside fire, required an increase in the precept. Unfortunately, the two authorities felt unable to accept the increased maximum and together with the five authorities they are included in the schedule to the order, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Robin Corbett: With so many of the Minister's hon. Friends at his throat, he will not be surprised if my right hon. and hon. Friends want to take part in the exercise.
The order and, indeed, the Minister's speech demonstrate the Government's bogus claims that the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils would make police, fire and civil defence authorities more autonomous. Quite the reverse has happened and the noose of central Government and Whitehall has tightened around their necks. Now it is the Home Secretary, aided and abetted by the Secretary of State for the Environment through the grant-related expenditure assessments, who in reality determines the levels of police cover and how public safety is safeguarded through the fire and civil defence authorities.
The Government determine the number of pairs of boots that police officers wear on the streets and the number of fire engines and fire officers, not against proven need, but against cash limits. That is the point and there is no good the Minister saying that that is not true because he is deciding half of it and his right hon. Friend at the Department of the Environment is deciding the other half.
Right around the police, fire and civil defence authorities there are complaints because, although there are increases of between 2·7 per cent. and 10·4 per cent. in spending levels, they mask substantial differences in what

authorities can levy. The Greater Manchester police authority, for example, has a cut of 13·9 per cent., Northumbria police authority a cut of 2 per cent. and the West Yorkshire police authority a cut of 19·3 per cent.
Can the Minister assure the House that those differences, especially where there are cuts, are because the crime rate has fallen so dramatically that less now needs to be spent on preventing and detecting crime? He need not answer that, because he knows, as well as I do, that under this Government inexorably year on year the crime rate not only in the capital but throughout the country has increased. Yet this is the period in which the Government choose to say to police authorities, "We know best. You cannot spend what you locally decide needs to be spent to give proper defence to people on the streets and in their homes."
Councillor Keith Wilson, chairman of West Yorkshire police authority says:
the present precept reduction in 1988–89 can only be achieved by utilising a substantial proportion of the West Yorkshire Police Authority's balances, thereby jeopardising the development of the service for which the Home Secretary himself is pressing.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. He makes requests of police authorities to improve their service and they want to do that in the interests of the people whom they serve, but the Minister, aided by the Department of the Environment, denies them the cash resources with which to do it.
Councillor George Gill, chairman of the Northumbria police authority, says that the cash it is allowed to spend
falls short of the amount that the police authority consider necessary for the chief constable to provide an adequate and efficient level of policing.
Will the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he knows better than the chief constable? I hope that he will not dare. They are dangerous words and again demonstrate the hollowness of the Government's repeated claims to provide all the resources needed to combat rising crime.
The West Midlands police authority has had a 10 per cent. increase in what it can spend and its precept has risen by 14·5 per cent. How has that good news gone down with the chief constable and that police authority? The police authority states that the spend
does not cover existing approved policies and will require a cut-back of some £1·37 million in gross expenditure terms in 1988–89 which will involve deferring such schemes, undertaken at the behest of the Home Office, as the introduction of administrative support units, the crime information system and the civilianisation programme.
There is not much joy in that, especially as what the authority is allowed to spend takes no account of its outstanding request for an extra 350 police officers and 25 traffic wardens. That information must be set against the background of an alarming rise of 109 per cent. in reported crime in Birmingham and the west midlands between 1975 and 1986, with a 276 per cent. rise in robberies, a 100 per cent. rise in woundings and a 147 per cent. rise in burglaries. However, the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that he and his right hon. Friend know better than the West Midlands police authority.
Why does the Minister deny to that and other police authorities the cash to pay for increases in manpower that their experience, knowledge and sense tell them are needed if our streets and homes are to be made safe again? How


is it that Government and Whitehall know best? They do not, but they override those who do and they are seemingly careless about the consequences.
Ministers have been all too eager to chastise Labour-elected councils that have sometimes appeared unfriendly towards the police. Now it is the Goverment who are antipolice by denying the manpower and resources that the police authorities need if they are to stand even a slight chance of reducing the crime wave.
In London in the past three years the London Boroughs Association, the Association of London Authorities and the Outer London Districts Metropolitan Police Consultative Association have jointly, in spite of political differences, criticised the Government for underfunding and for the way in which the precept is calculated and its size.
The mysteries of the police precept are compounded by those for the fire and civil defence authorities. I understand that one of the bases on which the precepts are calculated is population — of course, other factors are also taken into account. Can the Minister tell the House why it is claimed that West Yorkshire can get by on a precept of £3·88 per head of population while South Yorkshire has £5·51, Tyne and Wear £7·57 and Merseyside £11·38? What is the explanation for such wide disparities of treatment? One might have thought that the West Midlands, which is given £4·81 per head of the population might, as the largest fire and civil defence authority outside of London, needed more than South Yorkshire. But it is not need that comes into the reckoning. The cash limits override the need and proper levels of public safety.
After the horrors of the King's Cross fire, Zeebrugge and other events, Ministers cannot get to the Dispatch Box quickly enough to praise the bravery and skill of the fire service. However, in reality, that service is all too often run on a shoe string.
The Labour party believes that decisions about local police, fire and civil defence services are best taken locally, preferably by councillors accountable to those who elected them. The Government claim the same of the poll tax, but given the chance to put their claim into practice for the fire, police and civil defence services, they do exactly the opposite.

Mr. John Patten: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a future Labour Government would give central Government to local authorities without any control, so that they could spend what they wanted?

Mr. Corbett: I understand why the Minister jibs at what I am saying, because for the past eight or nine years he and his right hon. Friends, including the Prime Minister, have said, "If we need more resources to combat crime, they will be made available." The Prime Minister loses no time going on radio and television to say that, but when it comes to orders like this one, the Government scrimshank.

Mr. Patten: Answer my question.

Mr. Corbett: It is not for me to answer the Minister's question. We are debating an order laid by the Government. The incoming Labour Government will ensure that police, fire and civil defence authorities get the money that they need to provide proper public safety in their areas. That is more than the Minister can say.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: Will the next Labour Government also ensure that all Labour-controlled authorities support neighbourhood watch?

Mr. Corbett: If the hon. Gentleman can give me an example of a Labour-controlled authority that does not now support neighbourhood watch schemes, I should be interested to hear from him. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Manchester?"] That is not true of Manchester; I said "now". In the west midlands, Labour authorities, like all other authorities in the area, wholly support such schemes. The hon. Gentleman had better be careful about this.
Neighbourhood watch schemes have consequences in terms of police manpower. Unless the chief constable in the west midlands gets the 350 extra officers whom he needs this year, the neighbourhood watch schemes in that area will be no more than signs on lamp posts because there will not be enough policemen to make them effective.
In many areas of England and Wales, fire authorities must make cuts in manpower and cover, equipment is taking longer to replace and the purchase of modern, lifesaving equipment is being delayed. If that is worrying enough in the context of the usual, although serious, run of fires in homes and industry, how much more important is it in the context of the Government's so-called civil defence policies? They are not even prepared properly to fund that sham.
People demand and expect adequate public safety cover from our police, fire and civil defence authorities. The Government have made too many police forces unable to provide the service that they wish to provide, and that they know needs to be provided. People have a right to a direct say in the services that are needed for the areas in which they live. The Government deny both to local people, and that is why the Opposition will vote against the order.

Mr. Tony Favell: A moment ago I drew to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister the provisions of section 42 of the Local Government Act 1985, which allows the Secretary of State for the Environment to reorganise the fire and police authorities after consultation. It is now two years since the abolition of the metropolitan counties, and I suggest that the time has now come for the Secretary of State to consult and decide whether it is necessary to continue those authorities in their present forms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) will recall that, during the proceedings of the Committee that debated the abolition of the metropolitan counties, many hon. Members were concerned about the continuity of the police and fire authorities. Many members of the Committee suggested that the time had come to sweep away those authorities and return their functions to the metropolitan borough councils that had constituted the metropolitan counties.
My constituency has little in common with Bolton, Bury, Oldham or Rochdale: far better to return the police and the fire brigades to the communities they serve. The only connection that my constituency has with police headquarters at Salford is the telephone exchange. Every telephone call goes through Salford, returns to Stockport and gets lost on the way. It would be far better if everything went directly to the police who serve the community; the same is true of the fire brigade.
We have heard about a 20 per cent. increase over the past two years. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can


tell us what the increases over the past three years—since the abolition of the metropolitan counties—have been.

Mr. Dennis Turner: rose—

Mr. Favell: Over the past three or four days, the Government have had the good sense to see that ILEA should be abolished. ILEA is not dissimilar to the fire and police authorities. Let us sweep them away now and return them to the communities that they serve.

Mr. Allen McKay: I want briefly to discuss the South Yorkshire fire service, which the Minister knows well. I also want to correct one or two things that he said.
The Minister said that the Home Office and the Department of the Environment speak with one voice, but it appears that the voice is that of the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Minister talks like him when discussing facts and figures, but whatever facts or figures he reels out will not make up for the lack of fire cover in South and West Yorkshire.
The Minister's talk about using balances is ironic. Not so long ago, after the severe damage caused by the gales, the Secretary of State for the Environment took authorities to task for not having balances with which to cope with emergencies. Yet that is how the fire services use their balances—for contingencies. If two machines come off the road, the balances are there to be used to put them right.
It is now three years since we tried to convince the Government of the growing crisis in the South Yorkshire fire service. Statistics are of no use; the facts are there to be seen. South Yorkshire is already below the manpower requirements asked for by the Home Office. According to the standards recently laid down by the Home Office, the area needs 1,114 men, but the service does not have them. So the Minister, through the precept, is saying that it will have still fewer men, because the authority will not be able to replace losses incurred through natural wastage over the coming months. This precept will mean its having only 1,000 men, and that will mean that stations will close. They cannot be kept open without men to operate them.

Mr. Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend's constituency is in South Yorkshire and is similar to mine. Does he share my concern that every six or 12 months there has been a squeeze on rural part-time staff at fire stations, such as in Kiveton Park in my constituency? The stations are constantly under threat. Anyone who has any sense of geography will realise that if they are taken away, fire tenders will have to travel miles through country lanes to reach the villages that now have stations. People are deeply concerned about the threat to the South Yorkshire fire service.

Mr. McKay: Ministers do not understand that sometimes four tenders are needed on the first call-out. Each area has a set number of machines that must turn out. When the machines go out, they have, not six, not five and sometimes not four, but three men. That is dangerous, because the machines are not adequately manned.
Because of the lack of finance, 27 people who have been recruited, and who are waiting to take over as a result of natural wastage, cannot be trained as there is no money

to put them through the training school. If there was, the training personnel would not be there to train them, because they have to make up for the manpower loss in stations that are already undermanned.
The appliance turnout time is extended. I do not know whether the Minister realises what that means. At Hood Green, a house was completely gutted in four minutes. That is the maximum turnout time for such a house. For polyurethane, which I understand we are getting rid of, the turnout time is six minutes. If those turnout times are increased, one is increasing, not the danger to property, but the danger to life. That is what the fire service is all about.
The firemen are excellent. They could not be matched anywhere in the world, but there will come a time when they will say, "What is it all about? What have we done to deserve this? Our training and manpower are going through the roof." What about the fire service inspections? In South Yorkshire, fire service certificates are not being given out because those inspections are not being done. Those who carry out the inspections have to man the machines. That is what is happening in South Yorkshire, and it is time that the Minister realised it.

Mr. John Patten: I am listening with great care to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because he speaks with greater knowledge of South Yorkshire than I have. He will appreciate that. Does he agree that the substantial increase of just under 20 per cent. in expenditure over the past two years can in no way be represented as a cut or diminution of service available to South Yorkshire? That is flying in the face of reality.

Mr. McKay: It is not flying in the face of reality. The Minister should forget his facts and figures, come to South Yorkshire with someone from the Department of the Environment, and look at the books and the stations. If they think that they can do better, they should advise on how it should be done. If they do not think so, they should put on the table the money that should be there.

Mr. Patten: Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman immediately. I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Ferrers, who has ministerial responsibility for the fire service, will be delighted to work with the South Yorkshire board to try to find ways in which greater efficiency in the service could contribute to available fire cover in the area. It is not just a matter of additional money: it is a matter of making the best possible use of the money that is available. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that.

Mr. McKay: I was a member of the West Riding fire service for about 14 years, as a retained fireman. I know the area, the turnout, and the number of machines that are needed. Believe me, the Government are undermanning an excellent fire service. All that I am saying to the Minister is: come and look, open the books examine them and advise. If an improvement can be made, let us know about it.
I should like to talk about the £440,000 grant, which was in two phases, for 1986–87 and 1987–88. The 1986–87 part was taken into consideration. The other part has never appeared. The South Yorkshire authority could not take into consideration the money that it had been told was available. It knew about it only when it came down to see Lord Ferrers.
The authority examined the matter and told the Department of the Environment that it could not accept


that the money had been available. The DOE said that the authority had received about £150,000, when it had not. However, even if that money had been available, and even if the authority had used the £900,000 in reserve, it would still not be manned to the levels that the Home Office has laid down. We are asking the Minister to come and see for himself and sort the problem out.
Nobody wants there to be a major fire, and nobody wants there to be a loss of property or loss of life, but if that happens the buck will stop with the Government, not with the South Yorkshire fire service.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), but this is a very short debate, so very short speeches might be appropriate.

1 am

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that since 1983 I have made persistent and consistent representations to his right hon. Friend about the level of grant to West Yorkshire.
I recognise that the professional assessment made by Her Majesty's inspector is independent of the Minister and of the fire authority and that the inspector is satisfied with the level of cover in the area.
Fire cover, rightly, is an emotive issue. In west Yorkshire there are many textile mills, the floors of which are steeped in centuries of oils. It is essential that my constituents, and others in west Yorkshire, are satisfied that the level of cover is as the inspector says. To reduce the unease, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister would persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the level of grant now available is not as satisfactory as the level of precept that my hon. Friend has announced. Representations to my hon. Friend have proved successful, but can we hope that representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be as successful? We might then obtain necessary changes to the grant, which many other hon. Members would support.

Mr. Jack Thompson: The debate began with a quick tour of the west midlands and up through west and south Yorkshire. I should like to take the House's attention a little further north, to the area of Tyne and Wear and Northumbria, which is covered by the Northumbria police authority.
In some ways, it is unique in that it covers a shire county and what was a metropolitan county. It covers the low population areas of north and west Northumberland and the inner-city areas, with all their associated problems, of Tyneside and Wearside.
The authority was established in 1974, and at one time I had the honour of being a member of it. Since that time, it has faced severe problems, principally because of the mixed environment of the area.
I remember, as a representative of the police authority from Northumberland, that I and my colleagues from the shire county constantly brought the attention of the authority to the problems faced in the urban south-east and rural part of the county.
We recognised that the problems that the chief constable faced in the inner cities of Tyneside and Wearside were far more difficult to cope with than those in the rural parts. Therefore, we had to accept that manpower had to be redeployed from the rural and urban parts of the authority to the inner cities. It caused severe problems in those areas. It meant that in the rural areas one police constable covered up to 200 sq miles, but when he was redeployed in the more central parts of the police authority area, the other police officers in the area had 400 or 500 sq miles to cover. This was and still is a constant problem.
Ministers consistently stress the need for efficiency. I took part in reviews when I was a member of the authority and they have continued almost yearly since then. There is a review each time the budget is drawn up, and the authority is highly efficient. All credit is due to the chief constable, the officers and the authority for the way in which the service has been run. Like other metropolitan authorities, however, we have suffered as a result of the change in grant-related expenditure allocation last year. The basic problem is that the change was based on police establishment rather than on recognised need. As expected, the proposed maximum precept level of 13·92p effectively reduced the budget by about 10 per cent. Like other authorities, the Northumberland authority made representations to the Home Office. The result was an increase of 0·48p, which brought the precept up to 14·4p for 1988–89, but it did not match the modest requirements of the authority. A realistic increase would have been 1p. In cash terms, the figure was £700,000.
The problems faced by the Northumberland authority are probably greater than those in some metropolitan authorities. It has had a consistently higher percentage of retirements, particularly due to ill health. The figure has doubled since 1982, and that pattern is expected to continue. The number of serious offences per officer is 46·9 — that is 50 per cent. higher than the Metropolitan police in London whose problems are rightly emphasised—and well above that for Greater Manchester, which is the next highest at 43·6. That workload is probably a major factor in the high rate of ill health retirement. Loyalty is certainly not in question as next year a substantial number of those seeking retirement next year will have more than 25 or even 30 years' service.

Mr. John Patten: The expenditure levels take into account additional needs caused by high levels of early retirements and pension requirements.

Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but no one can predict the number of ill-health retirements, although the heavy work load increases the likelihood of such retirements. As a result, pension payments are between £3,500,000 and £4 million per year and are expected to rise to £4,250,000.

Mr. Patten: indicated assent.

Mr. Thompson: The Minister nods, so my figures must be right. They are of course, linked with the increased police pay settlements, so the problem will get worse year by year.
In the 1988–89 projections, no provision was made for expenditure on new initiatives—a proposition that was given up by the authority almost immediately. However, there was a recognition of the need for 529 new officers in


the service. A bid for a further 80 was submitted in April 1987, but, as yet, there has been no response—perhaps the Minister can give me one tonight. In the meantime, the crime figures in our police authority continue to rise, as they do everywhere else, and that is an increasing concern of the population.
The police authority has assessed its requirements for 1988–89, to provide the present level of the service as a minimum, at £51·75 million. That allows for existing commitments, anticipated pay awards and price increases. The Minister spoke about using reserves, but the authority will have none by the beginning of next year. It has £700,000 in balances, which will be gobbled up in paying for pensions.
The authority is in a serious situation, and many of these elements have been ignored by the Home Office in arriving at the assessments. People in Northumbria, like people everywhere, deserve proper police protection, and many in my constituency feel that they are not getting that. The sad thing is that they tend to blame the police constable on the beat, the sergeant, the inspector or even the chief constable, and, eventually, the police authority, when they become aware that there is one running the police affairs, when the blame lies with the Home Office.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: I agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), although 1 shall not go for the throat of my hon. Friend the Minister. An argument is being waged between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment about £500,000. One says that South Yorkshire fire service has the money, and the other says that it is sure that it has, but neither of them can find the money. The situation is not as grim as the hon. Gentleman tried to make out. Damnation and fire are not surging through all of South Yorkshire, but cash is needed. There is a shortfall of £500,000. Thanks to the water authority, which has great powers on maintenance, £200,000 of that has been found, so the shortfall now is £300,000.
My argument is not about how the fire brigade operates in South Yorkshire, or about how good it is, because the capital fund allowed for South Yorkshire is quite good. The problem arises solely from the discrepancy of £500,000. I should welcome an opportunity to come to a meeting with representatives from the two Departments to see whether this can be sorted out and ways found to retrieve the £300,000, which should leave South Yorkshire with a fire brigade of which it can be proud.

Mr. John Battle: The Minister has not given a satisfactory answer to West Yorkshire. Why must our ratepayers be obliged to pay almost twice as much as people in other comparable authorities for a broadly similar level of service, not only this year but in the year before and the year before that? As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) said, both the Home Secretary and the Home Office seem unwilling to acknowledge that, in our case, the police authority's reasonable request for a small increase in precept—to 16·5p—to preserve a realistic balance, cannot be met, in view of the circumstances. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about the request for the authorities to be cut, if not abolished. What is the strategy

for the next few years, and what are the Government's hopes and intentions? I hope that he will come clean tonight.
There is an underlying political strategy. The Government, through the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, are setting up local authorities in a cynical, political budget manoevre. They want to demonstrate that for the three years of rate capping, the precept was reduced each year. Then, as the authorities are released from that constraint in 1989–90, those reductions will mean that they have to increase their precepts substantially, which will be a massive burden on their ratepayers. They will have to pay the price at a politically sensitive time as we go into the next general election. Service levels can be maintained only by increasing the precept at this stage, or ratepayers will have to pay the price in future.
If the Minister holds his ground and says that he cannot increase the precept, will he tell us what he expects to be the future levels of services in those authorities?

Dr. John G. Blackburn: So many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate that I shall be brief—

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Where are the Liberals?

Dr. Blackburn: Their policy ends at 10 o'clock.
Although the debate has been centred on Yorkshire, there is a serious problem in the west midlands. Like all hon. Members who serve constituencies there, I have a responsibility to say a few words, especially about the precept for the police authority.
It is almost immoral for the Home Secretary to determine that there should be an inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings, and then to invite the West Midlands police authority to pick up the bill for £600,000. I know that part of that sum is still under debate, and the problem may well be resolved. However, it is unfair of the Secretary of State to order an inquiry and then expect the police authority to pick up the bill.
When reading the chief constable's annual report,, I was horrified to note that 1,100 police officers in the west midlands had been wounded or assaulted during the past year, resulting in the loss of 7,000 days of police duty. The Home Secretary should address himself to such facts, and ensure that we obtain value for money and that we protect the police service.
I unashamedly tell the House that, for the past eight years, I have had the privilege of being the parliamentary adviser to 90,000 members of the National Association of Retired Police Officers. The Home Office should not point a finger and claim that the problems have arisen because so many police officers have retired. No one in society pays more for his pension than a serving police officer. The way that the matter was handled bordered on the disgraceful. In August 1982, by statutory instrument and without debate, and when the House was in recess, the pension levels were increased from 7 per cent. to 11 per cent. for male officers, and up to 7 per cent. for female officers.
I do not want to hear any arguments about pensions. They are well paid for and well supplied. The Minister must leave an avenue open to review responsible, reasoned argument that is based on fact. I hope that he will give such an assurance to the House.

Mr. Ian McCartney: At 7 o'clock in the morning of 13 July last year, the Under-Secretary of State, the then Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and I were the only people in the House debating the issue. It took from 13 July until last Monday for the Home Office to respond and to meet to discuss the discrepancies between the maximum expenditure limits set by the Home Office and the grant-related expenditure assessments set by the Department of the Environment. The Home Office has lost out in the battle between the two Departments on the issue. All through the summer, meetings between the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Departments were cancelled and were agreed only at the last minute following the King's Cross disaster. This was because the Department of the Environment has been intransigent and has not made the necessary changes that the Minister knows are necessary to get rid of such discrepancies.
The precept is the difference between what the Home Office says that fire authorities need to provide the services set down by its own inspectorate and what the Department of the Environment is prepared to give in grant-related expenditure assessments. That is the reality. Tragically—it has not been debated so far—in London, not a single penny will go to the fire authority in the nation's capital. Because of that, 800 firemen's jobs are at risk, months after the King's Cross fire disaster. That is the reality of the terrible decision that will be made tonight and of the Home Secretary giving in to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
It is no good Conservative Members parroting on to the local press. They have had all summer to get the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment to change his mind. They have done nothing. They come to the Chamber tonight to try to give some support. It is too late. The decisions have been made. If they are honest, the only thing that they can do is to go into the Lobby and vote against the proposal.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) made two remarks. It is a pity that he does not communicate with the fire and civil defence authority in Greater Manchester. The changes in communications at fire service and police service headquarters in Greater Manchester were done at their request and with 100 per cent. Home Office funding. The Home Office is so pleased with the savings that have been made by both authorities that, on a regular basis, the fire and police authorities receive requests from other authorities to show them through their facilities. Authorities in Manchester are saving ratepayers' resources.
Stockport borough council's three representatives on the fire authority agreed with the fire authority and voted for the resolution that maximum expenditure limits as affected by GREA are wrong and impose an unnecessary burden on ratepayers and distort what is required. If the hon. Gentleman cannot support his local authority and local ratepayers, he should not be here. Maybe after the general election he will not be.
There is no evidence that the Home Office can produce to show — in accepting the Department of the Environment's analysis of places such as west Yorkshire, whose precept has been doubled—that there is anything

like a doubling of services to ratepayers. Millions of pounds are being siphoned from ratepayers as a consequence of the decision.
It is also true that Merseyside in the north-west will be substantially short of what is required. Already, there are discussions about whether there will be job losses for front-line fire-fighters. The Home Office sets the number of front-line fire-fighters, the level of expenditure for firefighters, the number of fire stations in each fire authority area and the ridership factor. Such matters have been determined not by the fire authority but by the Home Office.
They are monitored by the Home Office's inspectorate. It is on the basis of monitoring exercises that the Home Office sets the maximum expenditure limit. If the Home Secretary is not prepared to include those figures in the order, it means that he is not prepared to back his own Department, which set out the expenditure required in West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and London. Because of the vagaries of the grant-related expenditure assessment, made by a Department that is not responsible for fire services in the United Kingdom, the authorities and their ratepayers will suffer. They will face both an increase in precept and a reduction in services. That is totally unacceptable.
The King's Cross inquiry is already discussing a clear link between the cut in investment and the provision of fire services. It is astonishing that no London Conservative Member has been prepared to put the case that if the order is passed, not a penny of Government grant will be made available to the capital of the United Kingdom for its fire authority.
If the Home Office has said that this year £370,608,000 is necessary to run the basic fire services in the United Kingdom, why do Conservative Members support the figure of £315,073,000 produced by the Department of the Environment? That represents a cut in grant of nearly £58 million, simply because the Home Secretary could not stand up for the fire authorities. I ask Conservative Members to go into the Lobby to vote this disgraceful decision down.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I should like to add my voice to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) and other hon. Members who asked for a more liberal allowance —more liberalisation, if we have to use the word after 10 o'clock—to be made in the precept. I have been along with other hon. Members to see Ministers at the Home Office and have made representations. I have used the summer in trying to argue the case, as a previous speaker advised.
I have already instanced the extreme rise in crime in the centre of the land—the west midlands—and I shall not go over the figures again. They are well known. Therefore, I shall only repeat the words of the chief constable, who feels that policing is almost impossible if the precept is kept down to its present level. Even if £2·4 million from the balances is used in the west midlands, a precept of 14·36p will be required. Even if the police live off capital to that extent, leaving only £1·8 million in the kitty for real emergencies, they will still be well adrift on the figures. They still await the 350 extra officers and civilian personnel whom they need.
It is true that the situation in the west midlands is unique. We are an inland port and an area of immigration with relentless drug-related crime causing more and more resort to the knife and other weapons. It is no good Home Office Ministers simply ignoring those factors and adopting an arbitrary figure without explaining why. My conscience demands that I speak. I cannot remain silent.
There are many pressing matters. The increased demands caused by community watch, the Firearms Act 1982, the pub bombings, drug-related crimes and the repercussions of the Handsworth riots are such that, quite frankly, this precept restriction is out of order and I ask my hon. Friend and the Home Office to think again.

Mr. Bruce George: The mysteries and intricacies of central Government funding, local government and the police authorities are often beyond the likes of myself and, one suspects, people who are allegedly financially competent. However, although our constituents may not always understand the intricacies, they will see the end product and it is that which they will judge, not the clever words that may claim how much more money is being spent when, in reality, the quality of service is being impaired.
What is readily understandable to my constituents and, I suspect, to the constituents of many hon. Members who are present, is that when one telephones the police, they may not come, or if they come, they come late. The detection rate of the police is, regrettably, very low. Shopkeepers will tell us that they are finding it difficult or impossible to get insurance cover because their shops have been damaged so often that no insurance company will insure them. It is horrendous to discover how few police officers are on duty at some times of the day and night.
When hon. Members look round their own towns and cities, they are more likely to find a Securicor vehicle than a police vehicle because the vacuum that has been left by the Government is being filled by non-accountable private security companies. That is taking us back to the 19th century, prior to the establishment of the modern police system. That is the end product. One finds blocks of council flats being guarded by security officers. I am talking not about Park lane flats but about ordinary council flats. Such is the growth in crime.
It is difficult for me to talk about the growth in crime without being accused of sensationalising, but that growth is obvious to most of us here. The word consensus has almost left the English vocabulary but if there is a near consensus, surely it is that most areas are underpoliced. While one can make political capital out of the position, I make the point that this is not exclusively a political issue. It affects us all because in one way or another we are the guardians of the public interest; it is our job to reflect public anxiety.
A few months ago many Members of Parliament, representing the west midlands area attended a meeting in the House, at which we met the chairmen of the police consultative committees—bodies that were set up by the Government to reflect public opinion. They did so and expressed, rationally, the alarming developments of crime in their own areas.
My own town took about 1,000 years to reach the level of recorded crime that was reached in 1979, but in a few years that figure has doubled from 11,000 to 22,000 recorded crimes. At the same time, the number of police

officers has risen fractionally, by 23, but the amount of overtime worked has fallen dramatically and considerably. I would argue that there are now fewer police officers on duty in the town of Walsall than there were a few years ago while, as has been said, the police are now faced with problems that they were not facing several years ago, such as drug-related offences, terrorism and football hooliganism, and as another hon. Member has said, crime watch schemes impose additional demands and problems.
When the West Midlands Police authority asked the Government for additional resources, it was given the cold shoulder. The West Midlands authority asked for £95·481 million to allow for a reasonable increase of 350 police officers and 150 civilians. That is equivalent to a 14·87p increase in precept terms. The Secretary of State for the Home Department imposed a limit of £93·4 million. That does not cover even existing commitments.
The Home Office has been twisting the arms of police authorities to make them more efficient. In my constituency the establishment of administrative support units, the use of computers to greater effect and greater civilianisation have all been to the liking of the Home Office. The consequences of the cut imposed on the West Midlands police authority are that from next year the administrative support unit concept will come to an end, as will the computerisation and the civilianisation programmes.

Mr. Turner: How could my hon. Friend reconcile what he said about Government policy towards the west midlands in regard to the precept, when the most recently recorded figures for Wolverhampton show the highest number of crimes committed in the history of that area? Does my hon. Friend agree that when the party in Government is supposed to be the party of law and order, those figures are a disgrace? Government policy is a betrayal of the people whom I represent in Wolverhampton in the way in which they have treated us in the precept that we are debating.

Mr. George: The picture that my hon. Friend has painted of his part of the west midlands is replicated throughout Britain. When an authority seeks to be prudent and to build up adequate reserves, it is punished. The West Midlands police authority has been landed with a large bill for the Birmingham pub bombings inquiry and has been lumbered with compensation payments amounting to £1 million in respect of the Handsworth riots three years ago. There are additional demands based on incidents such as those that occurred in my hon. Friend's town a couple of years ago. When there are reserves, they can be dissipated very swiftly.
This is not a partisan point, but the Government must recognise that more police officers are required. I understand that only a few hundred extra officers have been appointed. Many authorities will be putting a strong case for the majority of those police officers. The economy is now booming. If people were asked whether they would prefer a small income tax cut or feel more secure in their homes, I suggest that the vast majority would prefer the latter, at least in the area that I represent, and perhaps in the constituencies of other hon. Members.
I am asking Ministers for more police officers in our constituencies. The Government will be judged by their failure to react adequately to the growth in crime. I hope that Conservative Members will not simply exercise their


consciences, but will translate that exercise into voting with us in the Lobby. Otherwise, their constituents will be rushing to them and asking for more police officers. If they read their local papers, Conservative Members will make the appropriate judgment.

Mr. Roland Boyes: When constituents come to my surgeries they ask for more policemen so that they can walk safely on the streets at night. Small shopkeepers ask for more protection for their property. They know full well that they are not being provided with that protection because there are not enough policemen. They also know that the result of this debate will be even fewer policemen. They understand, however, which party has spoken up on their behalf.
The Minister speaks with a forked tongue. Tonight he is supporting a charter for increased crime in the areas that I represent. The situation in the Northumbria police authority will grow worse. The number of reported crimes per police officer is greater in Northumbria than anywhere else. It is 50 per cent. above the comparative number in the Metropolitan police area.
Northumbria needs an additional 1,700 police officers. If one uses as a measure the number of serious offences recorded by each police officer, Northumbria needs 800 more police officers. Northumbria has carried out an important exercise that shows that it cannot manage without an additional 529 police officers. The Minister will be unable to satisfy that demand if expenditure levels remain as they are now.
My constituents will understand that this debate has resulted in their being given not more but less protection. When they come to my surgeries they will be told why. Unless Conservative Members join us in the Lobby and vote against the order, their words will be shown to have been meaningless.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Home Office says that South Yorkshire needs 1,114 full-time firemen. Has the Minister any evidence to suggest that the Home Office is wrong? If he accepts that the Home Office is right, will he not assure us that South Yorkshire will have enough money to employ that number of full-time firemen and the appliances they need so that they are able to do their job on a full-time and professional basis? The House is entitled to an answer to that simple question.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 61.

Division No. 171]
[1.45 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Allason, Rupert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amos, Alan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, David
Burns, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Burt, Alistair


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carttiss, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cash, William





Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Moss, Malcolm


Couchman, James
Neubert, Michael


Cran, James
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Dover, Den
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Durant, Tony
Page, Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Paice, James


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Patnick, Irvine


Favell, Tony
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gill, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gow, Ian
Portillo, Michael


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Powell, William (Corby)


Gregory, Conal
Raffan, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Redwood, John


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Riddick, Graham


Harris, David
Rowe, Andrew


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Ryder, Richard


Hay ward, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, David (Dover)


Holt, Richard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Speed, Keith


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Speller, Tony


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Irvine, Michael
Stern, Michael


Jack, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Janman, Timothy
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Summerson, Hugo


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Knapman, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Knowles, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Latham, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Walden, George


Lightbown, David
Waller, Gary


Lilley, Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Warren, Kenneth


Lord, Michael
Watts, John


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Maclean, David
Wheeler, John


Malins, Humfrey
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Mans, Keith
Wilshire, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Maude, Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick



Mills, Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Buckley, George
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Henderson, Douglas


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Illsley, Eric


Clay, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted


Clelland, David
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
McAvoy, Tom


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, J.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max






Mahon, Mrs Alice
Rogers, Allan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Gavin


Mowlam, Marjorie
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Nellist, Dave
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parry, Robert
Wray, James


Patchett, Terry



Pike, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Prescott John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Mr. Ray Powell.


Redmond, Martin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Local Government Act 1985 (Police and Fire and Civil Defence Authorities) Precepts Limitation Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday, 9th February notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Channon relating to Local Government not later than one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

Motorway Service Area, Hollingbourne

Mr. Andrew Rowe: On the day that sees the commencement of the relative planning appeal, I rise to present a petition in the name of Michael Nightingale of Wormshill and 842 others from the villages of Hollingbourne, Wormshill, Frinsted, Hucking and Bicknor in my constituency and from the village of Leeds in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who is also present, against the development of a motorway service area on the edge of an area of outstanding natural beauty at Hollingbourne, adjacent to junction 8 of the M20.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Jim Cormack

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Frank Cook: It is a pity that this matter should be restrained by the time afforded to an Adjournment debate, because its ramifications would justify a three-hour debate. It is the case of Mr. Jim Cormack and his service to the country in exposing a fraud of gigantic proportions in the misappropriation of diesel fuel at Faslane nuclear base in Scotland.
On 6 October 1983, Mr. Cormack went, on the instructions of his employers, to Faslane to pick up a load of sullage. Sullage is waste oil that has been contaminated in some way. In addition to his wages and allowances, Mr. Cormack was to receive a £10 kickback for the job. On loading his tanker in Faslane—he was allowed to enter without any security check and without showing any documents—he discovered that what was going into his tank was not sullage but white diesel with a little water added.
Mr. Cormack was allowed to leave the base without excise documents, without a security check and without certificates to the effect that he was carrying a hazardous cargo. He was required to take the load to Potters Oils in Derbyshire, which turned out to be a derelict yard. On the way, he spoke to other drivers who knew of the practice of collecting oil from Faslane and, becoming suspicious, he decided—in a somewhat foolhardy way—to institute his own investigation. Without reporting the matter to the Ministry of Defence police, because he thought that they must be involved in the fraud, he set out to investigate it himself by making inquiries of other transport undertakings and their drivers. He then reported the matter to the civil police.
The upshot of the inquiries that resulted from his blowing the whistle—his words, not mine — was that several people spent periods in gaol and several hundred thousands pounds were repaid to the Government in compensation for the money that was fraudulently taken from the taxpayer. The prosecutions that resulted from the inquiries were instigated almost piecemeal—one here, one there and one in another place — and were the subject of a High Court injunction which was lifted only on 1 December last year. It was imposed in November 1986 in the Supreme Court by Judge Lord Morrison under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. That meant that reporting of the incidents has been restricted, and the entire case has received little publicity.
I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister on 20 June last year, and the Minister informed me that he was aware of Mr. Cormack's role in the matter arid that it had not been overlooked. On 3 September last year, the Minister clarified that by saying that he had been referring to the fact that Mr. Cormack's role as an informant in the matter had not been overlooked.
Shortly after this assurance from the Minister I received the following letter from Mr. Cormack on 10 October:
I now find myself in a desperate situation regarding paying my way out of Government supplements … my search for work as a HGV tanker driver has proved to be nil. I have been offered a job in Germany, and due to my situation, must take the opportunity up. I feel more bitter now that I am forced, in order to pay my way, to work for a


country that lost the war! I now wish that I had not brought the Faslane rip-off to light, but that is something I have to live with.
So, Cormack claims that as a direct result of having brought the matter to light, he lost his job, his house worth £48,000—his business, and his wife. His sons now live apart from him. He cannot work because he has been identified as the whistle-blower.
Mr. Cormack's hardship has caused several people to write to him expressing sympathy when his case finally came to light in the press. He received one from a Mrs. McLevey from Paisley;
Dear Mr. Cormack,
I read your story … and felt I had to write to you. I'm not in the habit of writing to strangers but I feel you have had such a rotten deal and I wanted to thank you for being honest and for standing up to be counted. Please don't feel bitter. I am sure a person of your integrity will find a job soon … You did the right thing by the millions of ordinary taxpayers in this country. What sort of country would this be if we all had little swindles like this on the side? So thank you again from my family. I wish I could enclose more.
That refers to the £2 that the lady enclosed with her letter as a gesture to compensate Mr. Cormack for the service he had done the country.
Shortly after this, I received a letter from the Minister telling me that the outstanding case that had been holding up the release of the High Court injunction had been concluded shortly before, and that active consideration was therefore being given to Mr. Cormack's contribution, in line with agreed policy. Since then, I, too, have received correspondence. I offer one example, as a bona fide of that. It comes from Mrs. Elsmore, of Boon Hill, Stoke-on-Trent, who urges me
to press the Ministry of Defence for proper payment to this man who saved them a fortune.
That fortune has been estimated by one national newspaper at £6 million, and by Procurement Weekly and the purchasing supply management at a figure as high as £10 million.
On 11 January I received a letter from the Minister telling me that he was pleased to inform me that a payment of £1,000 had been authorised by his Department and that a payable order had been posted to Mr. Cormack. On the same day, I got this letter from Mr. Cormack:
You have to be in my situation to understand the misery it is causing me, not just losing my £200-£300 a week job, but my detached house, the break-up with my wife after 23 years of marriage, through rows over losing my job and reporting Faslane. She was right, I should have kept my mouth shut and minded my own business and let it go on and it would have gone on probably for another 10 years … I did not just inform on the matter, I investigated it at the Faslane base and could have reported it there and then to the MOD at the gate house, but I knew they had to be involved as well because the procedure was all wrong. So I carried on to where I had to deliver, staying overnight en route, at South Wood services on the M6, where I knew other drivers of the company I was delivering too would be staying. I was investigating there, talking to the drivers of Potters' Oils, where I was to deliver. They knew what was going on, but kept it quiet, because they had their own fiddles going on as well … Put it this way Frank. I put the whole bloody situation on a plate for the police and MOD, how it was done and where it was being done. I even worked out the cost of that one job, and it was over a million pounds. I even told them how many tankers would be there the next day. The other companies that were rounded up was a result of me reporting it in the first place … It is over four years now. I have just received a cheque from the MOD for £1,000 which is enclosed and would have you return it to the MOD, as it is like putting the boot in when

you are down; most of all an insult … It would not even pay my costs to go to tribunal … The cheque arrived on its own, no statement for what is was for, and most of all no letter of thank you.
He continues:
That hurts. I can't live like I used to. I just exist.
I could go on at great length. I have many more details, but I realise that I must give the Minister the opportunity to reply. I gave him warning of what I would say. Let me summarise. I should like to know whether the £1,000 that was offered to Mr. Cormack as reward for that multimillion pound exposé came out of any police snouts' purse, whether it came out of their normal informants' fund, because it seems so paltry. If so, how many policemen received a commendation or perhaps promotion on the strength of the prosecution? I hope that to hear an assurance that the Faslane investigation has cleaned out that nest of vipers because they cannot have been only the civilian personnel who were involved. Mr. Cormack had to pass armed commandos who were guarding that establishment. As he managed to do so without any sort of pass or documentation, we need that assurance. I hope to hear an assurance from the Minister that steps have been taken to ensure that other military establishments have been cleared and vetted, and are not operating a similar fiddle.
I have the £1,000 cheque in my custody, under lock and key. I do not want to give it back to the MOD, but I appeal to the Minister, in view of the hardship that Mr. Cormack has suffered as a direct result of his service to his country. He did not have to do it. He did not have to put his frogman suit on, swim up the Clyde to the Faslane base in the middle of the night, walk around for 20 minutes, swim back out to his Caravette, telephone the police and tell them. He did it simply because he wanted to prove to himself how bad the security arrangements were.
I should like to hear from the Minister that there is a prospect that Mr. Cormack's service and foolhardy dedication to his own public spirit and the penalty that he has imposed upon himself by trying to serve his country might receive better recognition.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) for raising this subject because it gives me an opportunity to express in the House my appreciation and that of my Department of Mr. Cormack's action. I hope that that can be passed on by the hon. Gentleman.
It may be helpful if I begin by sketching out more fully some of the background to this particularly complicated case and outline some of the measures that we are taking to ensure that this type of incident will not occur again. I hope that during my remarks I shall be able to satisfy the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed on that point.
As a result of extensive Ministry of Defence police investigations into what proved to be an extremely complex case, it has been established that during the period from January 1981 to November 1983, 1 million gallons of misappropriated fuel were illegally removed from the Clyde submarine base at Faslane.
The losses of fuel were possible only because of the unique position then existing at the Clyde submarine base with regard to the disposal of "sullage". In brief, sullage


is dirty oil and tank washings—a mixture of oil, water and acids— that have to be removed from submarines and ships. Unlike other bases, where there are dedicated reception and treatment facilities for sullage handling, sullage at the Clyde submarine base used to be disposed of by commercial contractors. Collusion was, therefore, possible between the contractors and the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service employees involved with the physical handling, collection and disposal of the sullage. That explains why they, and not others at the base, were involved in the incident. The practice at that time was for the sullage to be accumulated into a dedicated Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service barge and, after a period to allow the oil to settle, to be removed by commercial road tankers called by one of the RMAS staff involved.
In all, only seven RMAS personnel were involved in this case. One of these men died of natural causes shortly after the discovery of the theft. The rest were charged with corruption, and one also with theft, under section 1(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. In June 1987, four were sentenced to terms ranging from between three and 12 months. Sentencing of the remaining two has been deferred until June 1988—in effect, under Scottish law, a suspended sentence.
As a result of those court cases, it has been established that inducements were paid by certain contractors to those RMAS personnel in return for fortifying the sullage with good quality fuel, for allowing the unauthorised removal of sullage, and for removing part or all of the water content so that the proportion of recoverable oil was increased. I should stress that not all those men were involved to the same extent.
The contractors involved were prosecuted and sentenced. In all, 14 people were convicted. In addition, disciplinary proceedings are under way against two senior staff who had supervisory responsibilities at the base.
Since the theft was brought to light, steps have been taken to tighten procedures for the disposal of sullage to prevent any repetition. Once the theft had been discovered, the senior officer responsible for logistic matters at the Faslane base assumed full control for the disposal of sullage, and the use of contractors ceased. All accumulations of sullage are now transferred to a mobile barge and landed ashore outside the base through the oil fuel depot at Garelochhead for disposal under strict Ministry of Defence control.
Extensive internal investigations have been carried out and, where necessary, appropriate remedial action has been taken or is in hand. Accounting procedures have been tightened. The lessons learnt have also been read across to other bases, and to the other two services.
Security at the base has also been reviewed since the theft. There was no evidence of inadequate security: indeed, comprehensive security instructions were in force at the time of the theft.
I should like to turn now to the important part played by Mr. Cormack in assisting the Ministry of Defence police in this case.
The information supplied by Mr. Cormack first came to the attention of the Ministry of Defence police on 8 October 1983, via the Scottish crime squad. This report was initially addressed to the regional fraud squad, which was involved throughout, and gave a detailed account of how sullage was removed from the base.
At the time, Mr. Cormack told investigating officers that, although he would he prepared to speak to either

police or Customs and Excise officials to substantiate the information that he had provided, and to enable prosecution for what he considered illegal acts to proceed, he would not be willing to give evidence, as he felt that he might, as a result, lose his job and be "blacked" from employment with any other transport firm.
Consequently, Mr. Cormack's identity was not revealed, nor was he a witness during the subsequent court proceedings. His involvement became public only when he approached the hon. Gentleman and made a statement to the News on Sunday on 2 August 1987, some considerable time after the original events.

Mr. Cormack then, after this long interval, made contact again with the Ministry of Defence police. He was subsequently interviewed, and it became clear that his intention was to seek financial reward. Mr. Cormack was informed of the progress of the case : Mr. Cormack then, after this long interval, made contact again with the Ministry of Defence police. He was subsequently interviewed, and it became clear that his intention was to seek financial reward. Mr. Cormack was informed of the progress of the case and reassured that his involvement had not been overlooked.

Mr. Frank Cook: Information about Cormack's involvement came out because of leaks from the Scottish court cases and was known throughout the haulage industry long before the article in News on Sunday.

Mr. Sainsbury: I believe I am right in saying that the public appearance of the information in the press dates only from the time that I mentioned.
The very thorough police investigation was completed in April 1985 and was referred to the procurator fiscal. The court proceedings, which involved five separate trials, commenced in December 1986 and lasted until November 1987. The decision to go to separate trials was made by the Scottish Office. During the first trial the presiding judge, Lord Morrison, imposed a reporting restriction, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, for one year because of the other four related cases, allowing the media to report only the result of that particular case. At each subsequent hearing the presiding judge referred to and endorsed that restriction.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North wrote on 20 June 1987 to the Cleveland constabulary, requesting a report of its investigation. Since the matter was being investigated by the Ministry of Defence police, in cooperation with regional and Scottish crime squads, his letter was passed to the Ministry of Defence police headquarters, and I replied, as the hon. Gentleman said, on 22 July. At that stage I was able to say only that Mr. Cormack's part in the matter had not been forgotten. As I have already said, the hearings in the High Court in Edinburgh had not then been completed. A further defendant had been indicted to appear in September or October, and, because of the number of individuals involved and the related nature of the evidence, the judge had placed a restriction on the release of information bearing on the case. In the event, the last defendant was not sentenced until 3 November and reporting restrictions remained in force until 31 December.
Upon the successful conclusion of these proceedings, I advised the hon. Member that recognition of Mr. Cormack's assistance was being actively considered in the light of Ministry of Defence police policy. As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Cormack was awarded the sum of £1,000 in recognition of the information that he had volunteered, which, together with subsequent police investigations, enabled successful prosecutions to be brought. Payment was made, as requested, by personal cheque.
The Ministry of Defence recognises that informants can play an important role in assisting the Ministry of Defence police in criminal investigations. We therefore have a policy whereby, in common with other United Kingdom police forces, provision is available for discretionary payments to be made for information given to the police. As with the Home Office police forces, these payments are a police operational matter, ultimately at the discretion of the chief constable. These payments can be initiated only by the police themselves. So far as I am aware, the only significant difference which distinguishes our policy from that of Home Office police forces is that, because Government funds are used, the administrative arrangements within the Ministry of Defence require the Ministry of Defence police to seek approval for each payment.
I stress that such payments are for information given to the police. They are not rewards, in that they are not payments offered in advance for information leading to the conviction of those involved in a particular crime or to the recovery of specified stolen property. They are a recognition of particular help given to the police and are therefore not related to the value of the goods stolen or recovered. The informant will usually not wish to be identified with the information that he has given, and that

was so in this case. To protect the individual, both the policy and its application are normally treated as confidential.
The police request for approval of a payment for information is usually not made until the judicial procedure has been completed. This accounts for the considerable lapse of time in Mr. Cormack's case. As a result of the information that he gave, a police investigation was undertaken which took 18 months to complete. The last of the resulting trials was not completed until November 1987.
It is particularly important to distinguish between payments for information and rewards of the nature that I have described. Mr. Cormack gave the police valuable information, and by doing so he became eligible for consideration for a discretionary award from, and on behalf of, the police for that act. It might be expected that a law-abiding member of the public coming across evidence of a criminal act would tell the police without any thought of receiving a payment for doing so. In this matter, Mr. Cormack has acted as a public-spirited citizen. The £1,000 that he has received is simply a recognition of that fact. We are grateful for what he did.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Two o'clock.